Remove xp grind completly

[Ramm tactics]

       Why do mmo's all have a xp grind in the first place is my question?    Why not start everyone out even at max tier or lvl?  The reason why many games do not do this is so they can make players spend a lot of time trying to lvl and then the players decide to start spending real money on things which they believe would increase their enjoyment of the game.   When they buy the things and it doesn't make the game more fun, they buy a different item and it just goes on till they find another game.   I purchased this game thinking it would be a pvp game but so far all i have seen is a fleeting pve game with a long grind to get to 3rd rate lvl. and by then they will say only 1st rates in pb's so i'm about done with it.

 

 

 

Now my solution          

 

         Make a seperate server just for pvp  and on this server is not even any AI ships.   Everyone gets unlimited gold and all ships in all ports are available at highest crafted lvl.  You earn outfittings by pvp and only pvp.

 

 

        Any thoughts?

[Stix]

I like the natural progression of ships as you move up through the ranks but pvp rewards need to be much much greater. Xp gain is rediculously low if you spent 10 hours looking for pvp as opposed to 10 hours grinding missions. I liked potbs mark of victory system. Pvp rewards need to be greater and to some extent unique.

[Ruthless4u]

While I will say that there are people here who want to force this into a primarily Econ game vs PVP.

Giving everyone access to the top of the line ships right away makes for pretty stagnant gameplay. Most players would play the top of the line ships, basically ignoring the lower end ships.

After a few weeks playing the best ships would get boring, and with noting to work towards leaves many with a void in the sense of accomplishment dept. Nothing to work for leads to stagnation and leaving for others games with a sense of progress.

[poison]

       Why do mmo's all have a xp grind in the first place is my question?    Why not start everyone out even at max tier or lvl?

Because they want you to keep playing; the gratification upon ranking/leveling up and obtaining the privileges and advantages that come with it are addictive.

 

   The reason why many games do not do this is so they can make players spend a lot of time trying to lvl and then the players decide to start spending real money on things which they believe would increase their enjoyment of the game. 

The reason why many games do not do this? Don't you mean the reason they do this?

 

Assuming you do, you're right, for games that either have subscription or have some sort of cash shop that provides gameplay benefits. But there's multiple examples (most notably, Path of Exile) that have a cash shop with no gameplay benefits and a grind. Devs have stated on the forums multiple times that if a cash shop is instated, it will have no in-game impact; it'll be pure aesthetic options.

 

I see how your question might be valid in other games, like WoW, Runescape, DotA, etc...but not here.

[Ramm tactics]

While I will say that there are people here who want to force this into a primarily Econ game vs PVP.

Giving everyone access to the top of the line ships right away makes for pretty stagnant gameplay. Most players would play the top of the line ships, basically ignoring the lower end ships.

After a few weeks playing the best ships would get boring, and with noting to work towards leaves many with a void in the sense of accomplishment dept. Nothing to work for leads to stagnation and leaving for others games with a sense of progress.

 

 

       I don't  know what server your on but i'm on pve 3 and right now many have 3rd rates and for any deep water port they are trying to only let only the fully crewed 3rd rates or other big ships do the pb's 

 

     This would be a sepperate server also so anyone who did not like it could play the normal one.

 

      As far as progress i'm thinking they could add tournament systems also.

 

 

      Like 1v1 massive tournament with all the players on the server bracket style

     2v2 3v3 and 6v6

[Ruthless4u]

Not to seem rude but in your OP you said you bought the game thinking it would be mainly a pvp but your on a PVE server?

I'm on PvP 1, and I've not progressed beyond 1st lt. but am still enjoying pvp without the biggest ships.

[Ramm tactics]

Not to seem rude but in your OP you said you bought the game thinking it would be mainly a pvp but your on a PVE server?

I'm on PvP 1, and I've not progressed beyond 1st lt. but am still enjoying pvp without the biggest ships.

 

I'm on pvp1 eu and a large amount in the game allready have 3rd rates.    And in your cutter you won't even damage a 3rd rate.  Also you must be doing them pvp mission things?    well them i find boring and pointless cause your grouped with randoms and there is no reward.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Ramm tactics

[Ruthless4u]

I'm on pvp1 eu and a large amount in the game allready have 3rd rates.    And in your cutter you won't even damage a 3rd rate.

Cutters should not be engaging 3rd rates regardless. Would have to much potential for abuse.

Also rereading you OP I realize my mistake, my apologies for thinking you were on PVE. 16 hour work days lol.

It can be annoying finding Pvp, but it's worth it when you do. The hunt for me is part of the fun, and is progressing to better ships.

[mirror452]

You sail the small ships to learn how to sail. You sail small ships, because everyone makes mistakes... better to make them in a small ship than in a big ship. You might even appreciate the strengths of the frigate class ships... The speed of the Renommee, the close hauled and beam reach speed of the Surprise, the ability to hunt ships in the Trincomalee, the surprising toughness of a Constitution. Even the Lynx can be appreciated... it is awesome for hunting small traders, and noone will ever catch a Lynx that doesn't want to be caught.

Don't see it as a grind. See it as an opportunity to learn about the game, to learn sailing, to learn about the battle tactics and to learn about your ships.

[ObiQuiet]

Yep, it helps to think of it as a simulated captains career rather than a grind. Though IMO the game could improve immersion in this area.

[charognard666]

really, i like the actual xp progression.... 

[Aetrion]

I think the XP progression should be a lot more nuanced than "Get more XP -> Use bigger ship". You should be able to customize your crew's training and so on, and have the ability to build crews that can handle small vessels so expertly that there is an actual reason to progress for people who prefer smaller ships. 

 

Removing it is a bad idea IMO, because at that point there would be absolutely no progression at all in the game, just "Have a friend who will give you a first rate? Congratulations, you have a first rate".

[Decoy]

I think XP is a cumbersome abstraction. Captains should be limited by money. You should have to pay to maintain every crew member you have. You can sail whatever ship you can afford to purchase, crew and maintain.

 

Get rid of XP. Add crew wages (or shares, if you're a pirate), require stocking provisions (food, water, powder and shot), and the managing of crew morale (and mutinies). Now you've got a proper game.

[ObiQuiet]

IMO Rating for managing crew budget, supplies, morale:

Realism: High

Gameplay: Low for a game about fighting; with depth it would be appropriate to a SimShip game. (Without sufficient depth it would be a tamagotchi.)

IMO Rating for warship captains limited by Money:

Realism: Medium

Gameplay; Medium

IMO Rating for warahip captains limited and rewarded by their combat record and completing missions:

Realism: High

Gameplay: High

[Aetrion]

I think XP is a cumbersome abstraction. Captains should be limited by money. You should have to pay to maintain every crew member you have. You can sail whatever ship you can afford to purchase, crew and maintain.

 

Making the game purely about what you can afford is exactly the kind of thing that you'd call inhumane design because it overly rewards people for spending unreasonable amounts of time in the game. No game should ever be designed in such a way that making it an unhealthy priority in your life yields the greatest payoff in the game.

[sailNE]

Making the game purely about what you can afford is exactly the kind of thing that you'd call inhumane design because it overly rewards people for spending unreasonable amounts of time in the game. No game should ever be designed in such a way that making it an unhealthy priority in your life yields the greatest payoff in the game.

 

It IS humane design because both in life and in games people who spend more time on some area on sport, music, etc are better than those - who do not. The more you grind  - the better rewards you get. That is natural. If you have unhealthy priorities in your life - it`s totally your area of responsibilities and only you are in charge of how you manage it. 

 

Inhumaine would be if newbie players get all the same stuff and the same treatment as dedicated hardcore players have. Most games are competitions. And in competitions there are winners and losers. Losers are often those- who didn`t grind enough for win. And if they want the same rewards as winners- well... thats kinda wrong.

[Sir Drakefox]

Your suggestions sound to me like an arcade mode for this game. For those, who donˋt want to immerse, just to fight and shoot. Could be done on a different server...

[Aetrion]

It IS humane design because both in life and in games people who spend more time on some area on sport, music, etc are better than those - who do not. The more you grind  - the better rewards you get. That is natural. If you have unhealthy priorities in your life - it`s totally your area of responsibilities and only you are in charge of how you manage it. 

 

So you fully realize that spending all your time on a game makes you a loser in real life and you still want it to be built in such a way that that is the main thing that makes you good at it? A game designed in such a way that you have to ruin your life to be good at it is the definition of inhumane design. 

Edited February 20, 2016 by Aetrion

[Mr. Starbuck]

Nonsense 

 

Make everything free for all just means to remove the major joy of gaining XP and ranking up. It's not meant to be a set-stage RTS.

[Decoy]

Making the game purely about what you can afford is exactly the kind of thing that you'd call inhumane design because it overly rewards people for spending unreasonable amounts of time in the game. No game should ever be designed in such a way that making it an unhealthy priority in your life yields the greatest payoff in the game.

 

So, right now progression is gated by XP. Gating by money would be functionally equivalent, but offer a couple of advantages:

1. It's less of an abstraction. You don't have to imagine that money represents some intangible thing. It represents money.

2. It's easier to balance. Right now, people have to worry about doing whatever activities provides them with the most XP, gold and fun, prioritized in that order. If XP were removed, and gold used as the only indicator of progression, that would be one less worry. People could do what was fun and profitable.

 

I refuse to accept the notion that game design should be altered to accommodate players' inability to properly appropriate their time. Any game that rewards players for spending time in the game (i.e. all of them, whether explicitly by abstractions like experience points or money, or implicitly by accrual of player skill with practice) could be accused of encouraging players to make it an unhealthy priority. It's a ridiculous notion.

 

It's also not your decision to make. Who are you to say what is healthy for anyone but yourself?

 

 

So you fully realize that spending all your time on a game makes you a loser in real life and you still want it to be built in such a way that that is the main thing that makes you good at it? A game designed in such a way that you have to ruin your life to be good at it is the definition of inhumane design. 

 

False dichotomy and Red Herring. No one is suggesting that anyone should spend all their time playing. Removing XP would not require that anyone spend all their time playing. In fact, removing XP wouldn't require any more or less playtime than leaving it in. It's just a (slightly) different way to measure progression. We already use it as such (you have to use gold to purchase new ships). Removing XP and increasing the gold required to progress would simply free people from the arbitrary abstraction (you must shoot another ship X many times in order to crew the next larger ship) and provide a more logically consistent basis for progression. 

 

You can sail whatever you can afford to buy, crew and maintain. To me that seems like a far superior way of doing things.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Decoy

[Aetrion]

So, right now progression is gated by XP. Gating by money would be functionally equivalent, but offer a couple of advantages:

 

It's not functionally equivalent, since XP is permanent once gained while money is spent and has to be gained again.

[Decoy]

It's not functionally equivalent, since XP is permanent once gained while money is spent and has to be gained again.

 

Were a system like this to be implemented, I wouldn't be the one designing it (obviously), but if I had to guess, I'd say you wouldn't accrue crew costs while offline or docked; only while at sea. Which means that you wouldn't be pushed to play any more than you currently are. You would, however, be incentivized to make your time at sea as profitable as possible (which is both realistic and interesting). I fail to see how that's a negative thing (unless you're really bad at earning money, in which case one might question whether you should be captaining a ship at all.)

 

In addition, the actual costs per crew member can (obviously) be adjusted. If the developers feel that people are being punished too severely for not earning enough gold, the costs can be lessened.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Decoy

[Francis Tabernac]

Making the game purely about what you can afford is exactly the kind of thing that you'd call inhumane design because it overly rewards people for spending unreasonable amounts of time in the game. No game should ever be designed in such a way that making it an unhealthy priority in your life yields the greatest payoff in the game.

 

This might be the most ridiculous thing I've read on these forums, and I've spent most of my time in National News, so that's a pretty high bar.

 

I'll fix your post for you: "Making the game about what you can afford rewards people for spending ANY amount of time in the game. If you spend a little, you're rewarded with a little. If you spend a lot, you're rewarded with a lot. Every game should be designed in such a way that your reward is reflected by your effort."

 

Honestly, this sounds like nothing more than justification for your sour, sour grapes. You see other people with more than you and you want it too, by golly, but instead of putting in the time it's easier to call them losers for making this an unhealthy priority and then  demand to have the same reward for nothing. Grow up. It doesn't matter how many days it takes you to put in the amount of time required for a given reward; what matters is that you do so. People don't tend to appreciate things given for free, and the whole purpose of incremental rewards is to encourage continued effort. Good lord.

 

Here, maybe some hollow platitudes about effort will help: "We learn the value of hard work by working hard." "Nothing worth having comes easy." Hmm, what else.. how about "the difference between try and triumph is just a little umph"? That one's cute, right? You're welcome.

[Aetrion]

We're talking about a game here, not a job, and I'm not saying things should come easy, I'm saying you should be allowed to earn them at your own pace. You guys are the ones who don't want XP so you can just skip to the end as long as you have enough gold stashed away.

[Decoy]

We're talking about a game here, not a job, and I'm not saying things should come easy, I'm saying you should be allowed to earn them at your own pace. You guys are the ones who don't want XP so you can just skip to the end as long as you have enough gold stashed away.

 

Because that makes a lot more sense than the whole "Shoot X number of cannon balls to progress" paradigm that we have currently.