Development priorities 2

[ID I]

I liked the idea of pirates only being able to raid a port and not hold it. Not sure how that could work out but an intersring alternative to pirate being just another nation. A downside would be collusion and port farming for resources.

How about underdog mechanic based on population. Give incentives like Xp, gold bonus, and labor bonus. I would be more in favor of just gold and labor bonus since xp is tagged to steam account. Gold is straight forward. This should aid in aquiring resources. Labor bonus could be increased regen rate or higher cap.

I think an incentive based solution for balancing out rvr populatons is the best way. Not everyone wants to be part of the zerg. If there is a higher reward for being part of an underdog nation it should help off set the lack of ports.

[Julle]

pve ganers dondt got a chanse in thes vote sad

they gona be last agen

[KrakkenSmacken]

I liked the idea of pirates only being able to raid a port and not hold it. Not sure how that could work out but an intersring alternative to pirate being just another nation. A downside would be collusion and port farming for resources.

How about underdog mechanic based on population. Give incentives like Xp, gold bonus, and labor bonus. I would be more in favor of just gold and labor bonus since xp is tagged to steam account. Gold is straight forward. This should aid in aquiring resources. Labor bonus could be increased regen rate or higher cap.

I think an incentive based solution for balancing out rvr populatons is the best way. Not everyone wants to be part of the zerg. If there is a higher reward for being part of an underdog nation it should help off set the lack of ports.

 

Personally, I would rather just see a good "game over" mechanic in place.  Trying to keep a conquest game "sand box" interesting indefinitely is much harder than one with a well understood beginning/middle/end phase.

 

So since Admin put it this way.

 

"If a player wants to kill sandbox because its better for the game - they should say it as it is. 

When providing feedback on features it would help a lot if players provide feedback in this form - i want x because i want to achieve y explaining what they want to achieve - not just by stating what they want to change."

 

I would like the game to achieve a model that allows for an easy declaration of winner, and still offers a limited movement and transfer of wealth forward into the next game.

 

CrowFall is heading that way, and so far the model has to be the most interesting I have seen in MMO land in a while, and is being done by people with a solid MMO history pedigree. 

 

So my suggestion along that line would be, allow players to switch servers and nations, and bring with them some contents of their capital warehouse. Say up to 500 units of every item they have in storage up to original warehouse size. (Perhaps specific limits or max wealth value, to prevent people from loading up on 500 mid notes)

 

Perhaps declare a winner at 50% server occupation, perhaps with a "Victory" flag for the next "world" that gets more elaborate the more times you are on the winning team,  and then give a one week countdown for a new server start, to allow players to build up and plan the move. 

 

Perhaps keep two servers running. Instead of PvP vs PvE, Sandbox (where port capture can't happen), and conquest, where it can and it resets.

 

To give the flag value, no player that has switched sides after one team has more than 20% of the map game gets a victor reward, or remove the ability to switch teams, locking players into their choice until the reset.

 

Leave the old server up for another 3 weeks to give stragglers a chance to move their stuff, or sequester the stuff in a holding account until they return.

Edited March 28, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Ruthless4u]

pve ganers dondt got a chanse in thes vote sad

they gona be last agen

Why should they solely be allowed to dictate the course of what was a primarily pvp game.

[Capt. Rice]

A healthy balance of both pvp and pve is needed imo. 

[Cragger]

A healthy balance of both pvp and pve is needed imo. 

 

Indeed, and the mechanics of the OW impact both. You can't really PvE if your nation is reduced to a handful of ports and is 'camped' indefinitely. Adding more PvE content now wouldn't do much until the foundations are in better shape.

 

PvE can even be used to drive PvP. Could have random 'treasure' fleets be sighted and make it a roving battle that never closes. Which players will defend or attack. But dividing up aggressor and defender requires working diplomacy options.

[Slamz]

Not everyone was happy with the production buildings.

 

Just for the record, I feel like production buildings are a step in the right direction, but need refinement with a view towards "the war".

 

I have brought it up several times and never gotten a response:

If my nation has 1 iron mine, why do we care about any others?

 

Why even go outside of a few local ports for everything I want?

 

France took over Puerto Rico and literally had zero reason to care. We took it, it cost a lot of money, we really showed the British who wears the pants around here but in the end there was nothing to do there and no reason to care or even hang around.

 

 

I think player resource production is a strong idea, but just needs more refinement. It COULD be a vital component of "War & Peace".

instead of having 8 flags in various places they bring 8 large fleets to 1 port.

 

That has definitely been a problem. Port battle mechanics somehow have to encourage people to spread out.

 

All too often the "PvPers" clump up like this and then wonder why nobody fights them.

 

Maybe the solution is somehow more goals that can be accomplished solo and by small groups. Like a way a port can be flipped, not through combat, but by something that 1 person can technically do solo over a few days if nobody stops them. (More people will help, but with diminishing returns.)

 

The current port battle system encourages "roll 100% as heavy as possible" and I think eliminates more battles than it creates.

[Cossack]

I would love some more pve elements and random events in the open world to relax to after some good pvp battles. 

 

That said, i feel that diplomacy mechanics are much more important right now (from a pvp perspective). So that gets my vote.  

 

 

Both choices are needed though, more pve content whether that be missions,events,new kinds of a.i fleets etc is key for the longevity of this game. I say this as mainly a pvp player, when people have nothing to do but sail for hours looking for a fair pvp fight... they get bored/frustrated real quick and we have seen many people leave recently. Give them something to do besides just grinding a.i fleets and we will see many return. As well as giving the rest of us more things to do in-between the pvp action. 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Cossack

[Cragger]

Just for the record, I feel like production buildings are a step in the right direction, but need refinement with a view towards "the war".

 

I have brought it up several times and never gotten a response:

If my nation has 1 iron mine, why do we care about any others?

 

Why even go outside of a few local ports for everything I want?

 

France took over Puerto Rico and literally had zero reason to care. We took it, it cost a lot of money, we really showed the British who wears the pants around here but in the end there was nothing to do there and no reason to care or even hang around.

 

 

I think player resource production is a strong idea, but just needs more refinement. It COULD be a vital component of "War & Peace".

 

That has definitely been a problem. Port battle mechanics somehow have to encourage people to spread out.

 

All too often the "PvPers" clump up like this and then wonder why nobody fights them.

 

Maybe the solution is somehow more goals that can be accomplished solo and by small groups. Like a way a port can be flipped, not through combat, but by something that 1 person can technically do solo over a few days if nobody stops them. (More people will help, but with diminishing returns.)

 

The current port battle system encourages "roll 100% as heavy as possible" and I think eliminates more battles than it creates.

 

I honestly don't envy the task of figuring out how to balance resource production. If they make the availability less evenly dispersed it just further pushes the balance into the hands of the the more populated factions. While it would increase war pressure a small faction would be hard pressed to take such resources.

 

Having resource abundance being more stratified only worked in Eve online because everyone had a same and 'safe' place to come back to and trade, empire space. 

 

In fact saying that I'm wondering if open world wouldn't be better setup with a background simulation doing national clashes with each other and we the players play as independents or members of of trading companies for clans, as those fielded private navies of their own back in the hey day. Hmm, something to ponder.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Cragger

[Wilson09]

Krakken got some things right. THX for mentioning Bartens´s Taxonomy!

 

Indead, it is well known in "game studies" that a multiplayer game can only survive if there

is a good balance of the explorer / achiever / socializer / killer - type of players.

 

I can only speculate, but this game has no lack of "killers" (speaking of PvP1),

presumably lost many of the other types over the last weeks.

 

I have long been thinking about what type of player I am? Guess, it has been changing over

the years, also depending on the game I played. But I´ve possibly never been the hardest

of the hardcore-kiilers. Despite, when it comes to trading. As Barten stated, yes trying to control

the trade and setup an monopoly on a ressouce can be killing as well...)

 

Coming to the ADMIN / DEV and our game...

 

Honestly, Krakken u caught me. Not lying, i was going to come up with the same idea.

And it is due to the ADMIN (many thanks !) as he focused and insisted on saying

"i want x because i want to achieve y explaining what they want to achieve -

not just by stating what they want to change."

 

Krakken made his statement...

So since Admin put it this way."If a player wants to kill sandbox because its better for the game - they should say it as it is. 

When providing feedback on features it would help a lot if players provide feedback in this form - i want x because i want to achieve y explaining what they want to achieve - not just by stating what they want to change."

I would like the game to achieve a model that allows for an easy declaration of winner, and still offers a limited movement and transfer of wealth forward into the next game.

- Perhaps declare a winner at 50% server occupation,

-Perhaps keep two servers running. Instead of PvP vs PvE, Sandbox (where port capture can't happen), and conquest, where it can and it resets.

------------------------

 

I can only add...

I want a RvR-game with a WINNING condition. I want be part of a winning or loosing faction.

 

Having played RvR games like DAOC back in 2001/2002, Warhammer online in 2008 and PotB

in 2010/11 and Europa Universalis IV, I can only say that infinite RvR-games have never been

a lasting success. Players get burned out by repetetive capturing castles / ports and doing it all

over again. 24h online won´t help the hardcore player, there is no light at the other end of the tunnel,

the job can never be done. Adding content, titles, rewards, colouring ships won´t help.

The game finally will die.

 

Okay, bring in a new ship. See you in 6 month, I want to check it !

 

On the contrary, a game like EU IV has been hugely succesful. Having experienced many, many

MPs-on weekends and on a weekly basis (1-2 sessions), players always have the chance to

start again, experience another nation, getting another feel, exploring the other side of the map.

Players like the contest!

 

Despite, there is no winning condition implemented, as it is no desgned as a RvR-MMO game,

rather players like to play for 6 hours and start all over again as another nation as there is

so much to explore and to achieve. Moreover the social factor is huge in those games.

Also, the killer gets his shot in random games, they don´t last very long. I did host one MP-game

myself, having figured out that it could only last over a longer period with a neutral host and

a monetary reward. Both did I provide and the game was a lasting success on a non-commercial,

private basis. Having said this, I can only remember the joy of the EU-IV player base to restart

again and again and trying out something different, another winning strategy, another coalition,

another diplomatic approach.

 

But coming back to NA.

I want long-lasting Naval Action + a finite game with (maybe alterning) winning conditions.

 

The old boardgames show how to do it. You won? Great! Let´s play it again! This time I will

play France, you were lucky, France is the much better faction. Also, we lost many player

over the course, so you have been lucky all the way, lets do it again in 2 weeks time.

 

Right now, there is NO winning condition in NA, just the order do PvP

as much as you can, and do Port Battles (as many as you can get).

I was thinking of it, but nobody told me, neither did I read it anywhere.

But, there is the implicit winning condition "conquer the world / the carribean / the map",

many armchair-generals (sorry!) treat it this way, but there is no solution, guys.

 

Personally, I´ve learned it the hard way as a pirate, that I have to play for

the pirate nation to capture ports and don´t surrender them to the British

and nothing else. Hm?

 

In the end, all will loose as there will never be an end, only the grind ends.

 

But how to win? Killing off all other factions is not feasible (as been shown by the Swedes),

a capital cannot be captured, therefore, the Swedes came back. 

 

The only way to achieve it, would be just permanent Port blockading to piss all players

of the other factions off. Certainly, not a reward winning gaming concept...(:

 

Furthermore, it had been stated by several players, capturing more Ports does not effect

the economy greatly. If the PvP1 Pirates own all of Cuba or get the 10 odd Shallow Water ports,

who cares? I could not care less, honestly. It is virtually meaningless, more players understand it.

 

It does not have any effect on the gameplay, nor does it have any meaning in the sense

"moving towards a common goal". As being stated permanently by a an active Pirate player

on Pvp "Join the war, we are making huge gains vs. the US". Yes, but why? And what gains?

Territory? What for? For the time being...and why should i have to worry what the Swedes do as a pirate.

Okay some nasty Danish clan might hire me and some friends to aid them in a Port Battle, but

what is the reward? Some money? Bounty? Hm, we all have enough money.

 

Thus, looking at the game right now, only the hardcore killer-killer player can be satisfied with

the game right now. As the story is always the same "for the sake of killing". Dont get me wrong,

we need this player type, they will lead us to win the game, but others should be able to take part

and play their role.

 

As has been stated in the forum somewhere, many players don´t play PvP, just PvE on a PvP-server.

There are reasons. One is, the PvE is the easiest way to lvl up, the other, that capturing Ports are completely

meaningless,

 

So, how can we have a game (many talking of the "endgame")?

 

I´d propose the following_

- keep the sandbox-PvP and PvE server as it is, adjusting things, keep this server forever, add content

- alternatively merge PvP and PvE sandbox, by defining "warzones", therby ensuring that all player types

can play on this server

- open a PvP-contest (or tournament) -hardcore server with real winning conditions

 

In order to get access to the Tournament-server, one needs to "unlock" all ships at the PvP

or PvE-server and MAX. level at crafting and XP.

(guess that´s from old Diablo? Max lvl 60 then you can go Hardcore...)

 

Here we go, it sets a massive incentive for the player community to keep playing. The player

base gets seperated. The old "hardcores" finally will contest in the tournaments, maybe log

onto their old server to "relax" and calm down and experiment. The new players won´t be

put off by the Santissima-Hardcores sailing around only in the future, as they will swap to the

tournaments. A healthy environment and mix of ships should be accomplished in the open sandbox.

 

How are the tournaments going to work?

Simple, you would not have to change a great deal. Actually, we could start right now with no big changes.

I strongly believe all other problems are of minor relevance (flags, PB timers and PB-Brating, Battle mechanics

and so on) and can be solved. But first, one needs to get the setup right for a RvR-war.

Rethink the pirate faction (I presume that is the biggest deal, but they could be really interesting), or keep

them as a faction as they are (they could have diff. winning conditions though),

do a brainstorming about well-defined winning conditions, for instance:

- a faction wins owning 50% of all ports

- the Pirate faction wins having raided all Dutch ports (haha..i am kidding)

- the French win, owning following ports. A, B, C, D

- the Swedish win, owning all of Puerto Rico or beating the Dutch or the Danes down to 3 Ports

- a faction wins controlling 30% of the iron production

- and so on...

 

These are just examples. Any mixture of winning conditions are possible, unluckily

they need to be public, there can not be "hidden" winning condition (as we have spys).

 

Advantages:

- clear goal to the game

- no endless gaming

- adjusting game introducing tough or soft winning conditions / fixed game end (draw possible)

- players have lots of excuses for loosing (less gaming time, less players)

- players learn and get better

- real diplomacy comes into the game as every faction pursues its own strategy to finally come out on top

(maybe as Pirates, lets kill some Dutch on behalf of the Danish crown, but finally we take their Ports also)

- player can take a break, but these guys will always come back with recharged batteries

- the steady-state will not last long (as right know, who was it? One player was asking for a reset

   as the clans hate each other), can be solved quickly, just choose the faction nex time where no KOTO

   is in it (sorry, just an example)

- you can play all factions over time (I´d like to switch from Pirates to Sweden, just to see some other coastline...)

-  you can balance the factions over time / adding more factions, creating revenue (DLC?)

- you can play with AI fleets or not, like giving really marginal, marginal faction points to kill fleets all over again

from the old enemy.

- AI war fleets could be introduced, players could look out for them and join them, these would lead to permanent

waring and PvP, no mision gangbanging, get rid of it...NO stupifiying mssions needed in a tournament

 

Disadvantage:

- players can feel pushed by the clans to play a more active role

(well, you don´t need to play, it is a game in the end with no money rewards)

- ?

 

I don´t see any other. What am I missing out right now?

 

Final words:

Personally, I  believe every well defined game needs a winning condition and a finite end and

benefits greatly from it. That is my experience, otherwise, the sandbox can only be run by

permanently adding content (colours, whales, missions, ships). But this is a race, the NA-Developer

cannot win at this type of game, as it is PvP and RvR-orientated attracting and favouring the "killer"-player.

I´d would just not work without them as you need the contest-focused player to keep the war going.

And you will not keep him, as the "killer-player" usually is also a hardcore-player and they will max-out

every XP-level and crafting-level you will put on top.

 

I made my statement, and I am looking forward to see if you keep mixing everything in one

open PvP-sandbox and / or add something else.

 

And yes, i want to play my part as a nasty Smuggler, stealing ressources from the Dutch / British.

And I don´t know how this could be accomplished. Allow me to sail into the enemy Port using a false flag

and buy goods with a chance being spotted? I don´t know.

 

But that is another story, another

"i want x because i want to achieve y explaining what they want to achieve -

 

Thx ADMIN !

Edited March 29, 2016 by Wilson09

[Slamz]

Speaking of Bartle types, I do worry about this game's appeal to Achievers.

 

I'm not an Achiever. Not surprisingly, I'm more of a Killer, but as the man says, Killers like killing Achievers so I'd rather not see them all quit. Which they are going to do once they hit max rank (many probably already have) and have the best ship (many probably already have).

 

I would bet there's a fair population of Achievers out there that are literally done with this game. They may come back out of curiosity to see what future patches add but they've already made max level and max ship and are done. Admin might suggest that's perfectly fine but I think it's way too early and stands to throw off the player balance.

 

 

Somehow, we will have to find things for achievers to achieve. Maybe that's where a port owner system would come in. Or something. Or better (public?) tracking of stats, like EVE's killboards -- who killed who, how many times.... not a "leaderboard" per se, but just a stat tracking system that might be open to interpretation on how "achievement" may be measured ("I got the most kills!" "Well I killed you the most!" "Well I'm the most accurate!" "Well I do more damage per battle!").

 

Part of why I don't like this game's XP/rank grind is because it's a turnoff to explorers and killers (and not of much interest to socializers) and achievers will blow through it in about 2 months (if that). It gets in the way and doesn't really provide a solution.

[Spencer Rhodes]

I am voting for PVE content. It would benefit both PVE and PVP servers. If you look at the current state of PVE content it is lacking. I would like to see something that improves that, but not just single player content, something that clans and groups can do together to improve social play. I fear without such content captains now sailing 1st and 2nd rates will get bored and leave the game. I believe improvements targeting group content and PVE, especially, could increase our player base Maybe even something that would be challenging for a full group and would require coordination.

[Kaos]

 

That is horribly short sighted.  What is needed is mechanics to balance the populations, not exclusivity, which has been demonstrated historically to kill games faster than without it.

 

 

 

EDIT: Ironically these polls while informative about the current player base, will probably produce results that will further imbalance the player base towards the largest and most vocal of the player base, and not help the longevity of the game.

I already said in my post I am not here to kill some achievers or explorers or pve'rs, contrary to what your cute youtube carebear theorycrafting video is trying to make you believe, I am here to kill other killers. Killing pvers is a side thing when there are no other killers around and this is certainly not the main goal of pvpers nor is getting into a fight forced by pvper the main goal of pve player...When pve player joins pvp server why should he expect Peace & Love? Noone forced them to join pvp when there exists PvE server.This game was never aiming to appeal to masses and all 4 groups to make some perfect harmony mmo. This is a small team working on a niche product and you want to divide their attention to chase 4 rabbits and catching none? Read some older posts to get perspective:

 

Casuals are what they are, and that when they do the jump to realistic (and a lot of them will) they will cry rivers, whine mountains, and spread totally worthless and toxic input for the only reason they don't even grasp the essentials of the game they're playing. That puts a lot of stress and pressure on the developers, and, at least in the case of Gaijin, they ended up folding and giving away to the demands of the casuals ,so now RB and even SB have to do with massively ridiculous concessions (going on from matchmaking all the way to flight models or minimap contacts in SB) to at least moderate the incessant whining from the casuals...who, btw, still can't get anything done in those gamemodes anyway (to the point of witnessing He112 vs F6F fights...with the He112 doing short work of the hellcat. Yes, it's that bad).

 

There are literally hundreds of reasons why that is a woeful idea. Trust me. I also thought it was a good idea when I began playing WT, and a smart move by them. In the mid term however it translated into a massive issue and a black hole of constant problems, a timesink for the developers that need to fix and solve the totally different problems each game mode has, and a whole customer base which is unhappy with the game no matter how much they play it because is not casual enough for the casuals and is not (not even close) immersive enough for the people who want realism.

 

 

This spillover between hardcore audience mixed with casuals is causing the problems you mentioned - it's a cheap fish bazaar mixed with Lois Vuitton stores - as a result everyone is unhappy.  WT just don't know what you do and what you don't do and the reason is greed. A problem of drawing a line in the sand. They are F2P and need everybody to funnel into the grinder. Porsche can say - we are not going to make cheap cars. WT cannot. 

 

I personally believe that there are successful examples of companies which allow for different rulesets while keeping the limits of the setting. We know such limits for our game, for example we lost some potential customers last year (even before first testing started) when we clearly stated, that we are not going the way of 4-5 hour duels. Some of the old guard here might remember it. We also know the limit on the casual side.

 

 

Speaking of Bartle types, I do worry about this game's appeal to Achievers.

 

I'm not an Achiever. Not surprisingly, I'm more of a Killer, but as the man says, Killers like killing Achievers so I'd rather not see them all quit. Which they are going to do once they hit max rank (many probably already have) and have the best ship (many probably already have).

 

I would bet there's a fair population of Achievers out there that are literally done with this game. They may come back out of curiosity to see what future patches add but they've already made max level and max ship and are done. Admin might suggest that's perfectly fine but I think it's way too early and stands to throw off the player balance.

 

 

Somehow, we will have to find things for achievers to achieve. Maybe that's where a port owner system would come in. Or something. Or better (public?) tracking of stats, like EVE's killboards -- who killed who, how many times.... not a "leaderboard" per se, but just a stat tracking system that might be open to interpretation on how "achievement" may be measured ("I got the most kills!" "Well I killed you the most!" "Well I'm the most accurate!" "Well I do more damage per battle!").

 

Part of why I don't like this game's XP/rank grind is because it's a turnoff to explorers and killers (and not of much interest to socializers) and achievers will blow through it in about 2 months (if that). It gets in the way and doesn't really provide a solution.

I would rather worry how to link this achiever and other types to RvR instead of trying to develop seperate content for them in current time.

Like Ron Swanson said, don't half ass two things, whole-ass one thing.

And be honest, do you really enjoy killing someone who doesn't even fight back at you instead of someone like yourself who has the same goals? It kind of get's old I think after a while.

[Modern Major General]

Enrich the open world, it is a hollow shell as it stands, we know PvP will get a rethink, it is obvious, now though is not the time.

[Ruthless4u]

I personally believe that there are successful examples of companies which allow for different rulesets while keeping the limits of the setting. We know such limits for our game, for example we lost some potential customers last year (even before first testing started) when we clearly stated, that we are not going the way of 4-5 hour duels. Some of the old guard here might remember it. We also know the limit on the casual side.

Really gotta wonder, what percentage of the games population has time for a 4-5 hour duel?

Do you think more customers were potentially lost or gained by not including something like that?

[admin]

Really gotta wonder, what percentage of the games population has time for a 4-5 hour duel?

Do you think more customers were potentially lost or gained by not including something like that?

 

we definitely know one guy who posted the statement similar to this:

"i lost interest in Naval action when i found out that they are catering for the casual crowd by not making historical 4-5 hour battles"

[Kaos]

Really gotta wonder, what percentage of the games population has time for a 4-5 hour duel?

Do you think more customers were potentially lost or gained by not including something like that?

That's not the point of the statement and I think even currently it's too long and not accessible to many but that is another topic. It's just an example how this company is not afraid to say ''no'' and not trying to please everyone at the same time for some utopian balance between the types and is not concerned with losing some potential customers.

[DEK]

del.

Edited March 29, 2016 by DEK

[Slamz]

And be honest, do you really enjoy killing someone who doesn't even fight back at you

 

Yes. It's not my goal. I'd rather have a good fight and I do enjoy fighting Killers, too. But yes, I absolutely enjoy killing people who don't fight back, or fight back incompetently. We refer to it as "welcome to PvP" and consider it to be a community service. If they can't harden up a little bit, get a little spunk to them, then I don't mind driving them out of the game.

 

Interestingly, I think, not all members of my guild are "Killers" as you might expect. But all of them -- the socializers, the explorers and the achievers -- know how to man up during a fight and take their lumps when they sign into a PvP game. I expect nothing less of the rest of the game population.

 

I don't want to drive non-Killers away. I want them to feel like this game has room for them. A game full of Killers can frankly get boring and routine. But I don't want to coddle anyone either.

 

I just foresee doom for Achievers if there is only one thing to Achieve, and some people are already done with it. And adding more ranks isn't the answer because the rest of us hate that.

[Kaos]

I just foresee doom for Achievers if there is only one thing to Achieve, and some people are already done with it. And adding more ranks isn't the answer because the rest of us hate that.

But what is the problem? Achieve Bellona kill with your Frigate, hunt 50 players solo without dying and then brag about it to friends how awesome you are, achieve map dominance with your mates and become the pixel king that defeated everyone else. Go out into open world sandbox and create your own achievements with the tools the game provides but no, it seems most people don't know what to do with all that freedom and prefer skyrimesque arrows pointing them at directions and missions and then complain that there is a lack of their specific perfect blend of things to achieve since everyone has their own version of what achievement is supposed to be.

[KrakkenSmacken]

I already said in my post I am not here to kill some achievers or explorers or pve'rs, contrary to what your cute youtube carebear theorycrafting video is trying to make you believe,...

 

This game was never aiming to appeal to masses and all 4 groups to make some perfect harmony mmo. This is a small team working on a niche product and you want to divide their attention to chase 4 rabbits and catching none? Read some older posts to get perspective:

 

 

Resorting to ad hominem attacks, and discarding decades of studies and research on the subject of game design only shows your bias and ignorance, and quite frankly I don't care one whit what your personal preference is on who you kill.

 

I would really love to hear the Admins perspective on what they are trying to achieve.  I am getting mixed signals because some say that it was always supposed to be a game primarily for killers, and yet they just added economy mechanics, and Admin is asking in the current poll about improving many non Killer aspects of the game. In fact the questions asked could almost be categorized into one question for each of the types, with arranged PvP being a second killer option after conquest.

 

Obviously the current population that posts of the forums appear to prefer the killer role as I myself do.  I joined Pirate for a reason.If Admin comes in and says that he wants a DayZ 95% killer population, well then my comments and suggestions will more reflect that goal.

 

That said, until I hear a specific official comment I assume that the goal of the game it to achieve a reasonable balance and will direct my comments and thoughts as such.

 

I believe we should be united around wanting to experience just a bit of what it was like to sail these ships, combat or not.  The Devs went to a great deal of work finding out exactly how they used to build these ships in order to design the crafting BP formulas.  All that work would be pointless if the only purpose for the game was to point cannons at each other.  

 

May as well have made "world of tall ships" and been done with it.

Edited March 29, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Unsubbed]

WARNING: Unpopular opinion ahead!

 

While I definitely enjoy the war and peace/political aspect of this game, I think we should all stop for a minute and think about what really drew people to this game in the first place before steam release... epic pvp battles without OW, nations/factions, and economy.  It's not to say that people wouldn't get tired of a game that relied solely on the original, early Alpha of small, large and Trafalgar battles, but that it is initially what drew so many to it.

 

When they decided to move in the direction where we currently are and released NA on steam, it was instantly popular and servers were growing in population for the first month or so following.  Then we began to lose player base and are still seeing a number drop across all servers, even as people are migrating mainly to PvP1.

 

So let's ask ourselves, what is causing us to lose players?  So far, the most common reason I have heard is that the grind is just too monotonous because you basically have to do PvE to level.  Were someone to solely PvP to level, it would take an extremely long time and be very expensive.  I am sure there are other reasons but this seems to be the one that most people have a problem with:  IT'S BORING!  

 

Now, I don't agree 100% with this statement.  I have over 700 hours invested in this game and while it isn't always heart-pounding, I find things to do that I think are fun.  However, I have way too much time on my hands and the enjoyment I get from exploring, PvE, PvP and doing economy keep me entertained.

 

We have to realize people who read and reply on forums do not always represent the silent majority.  Just having created an account to post on these forums speaks volumes on how seriously you take gaming and enjoy Naval Action.  Not to paint with broad strokes, but this means you probably already lean towards the more in-depth aspects to the game bc you have the time on your hands to get involved.  That being said, do the devs need to focus their energies on improving the War and Peace, etc. side of the game when all the people that are probably posting on these forums are ALREADY hooked on NA and will not be going anywhere anytime soon?

 

I am not suggesting that this should not be a focus in later patches but I think for the time being the most important aspect to the larger community is keeping the game fast paced for those who don't have much time to invest each day.  This is going back to what I wrote in the first paragraph, EPIC PvP BATTLES.  We need them often and we need them balanced and a way to participate without waiting for 3 guys to decide when to buy a flag or tell the group to move out.  

 

People are probably assuming after the last paragraph that I mean port battles, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO REPLACE THE CURRENT SYSTEM.  Please don't tell me that we already have the small and large battle screens, they aren't drawing the numbers that are needed to make the battles look like what people watch on youtube and lead them to buy this game.  These battles should have some type of draw to them as well besides just being there to PvP.  What I mean is they should mean something but not necessarily taking ports.  It would be cool to make standings for each nation and have stats to show how many total ships have been lost or destroyed in battle since the system was created, total cost of losses, players with top kills/assists/damage and other things to spice it up.  This would allow players something to brag about, tell their friends(drawing more ppl to the game), and generally have a more satisfying gaming experience that will cause a surge in server population and a more successful release, imho.  (And if you didn't like that last sentence because you believe it will lead to elitism... take a look around, Wal-Mart has already sold out of rulers bc of the E-peen measuring).

 

Crack wouldn't be nearly as popular a drug if it took 30 min for you to get high and it only lasted for 2 min and then you had to wait another 30 min to get that 2 min high again.  GET PEOPLE HIGH FOR HOURS... metaphorically speaking.  The rest of us still here are the ones who are addicted and need our fix regardless of what you do.  

 

I am sure plenty of people will disagree with me, but I am not suggesting a removal of any of this games existing components, only going back to its roots and adding new, quickly and easily accessible content that reflects those origins.  There will still be an economy, port battles, politics, trading hubs, crafting, extremely fun 3 hour sailing times and who can forget our appointed(or self-appointed) kings and queens.  IMHO, refining nations and politics should take the back burner for now until we stop bleeding massive amounts of players.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TL DR:  Leveling is boring and tedious with a focus on PvE.  Instead of focusing on the aspects which already are keeping the current player base, lets focus on what would have kept all those players we have already lost so quickly and help find new ones; a fast-paced, BALANCED, large scale pvp-driven alternative to the current slow paced gank fest that has become OW pvp and PB's that you probably don't have a large enough ship for(yes I know we have shallow water ports but again think time investment).  This will make the game more fun for those who want action fast and keep people coming back for more.

Edited April 2, 2016 by F4ppinFr3nzy

[DeRuyter]

Diplomacy, alliances, piracy/privateering is long overdue for being addressed.

If piracy wasn't in such a contentious and (in my opinion) faulty state of affairs, I would have easily picked the further development of crew/officers or the further fleshing out of the economy/resource distribution. When it comes to these things, I am normally of the school of thought of 'finish one project before starting another" (such as the economy in this case) .

 

However i believe the longer we leave pirates the way they are (playing more as another nation than as uniquely pirate) the harder it will be to change further down the line.

 

This ^^.

 

While epic fleets and more PVE content may be a hot issue right now, I think working on the W&P plus Pirate mechanics may well make the OW more exciting without the additional PVE. With the land in battles ( varied depth in ports maybe?) and a rework of Pirates just maybe we'll not have to grind away in PVE to all get 1st rates for rinse and repeat port battles.

 

I would go with more PVE variety - different missions, etc as #2. Although the same people voting for PVE will also be the ones complaining about sailing to far to get there!

[surfimp]

Just for the record, I feel like production buildings are a step in the right direction, but need refinement with a view towards "the war".

 

I have brought it up several times and never gotten a response:

If my nation has 1 iron mine, why do we care about any others?

 

Why even go outside of a few local ports for everything I want?

 

France took over Puerto Rico and literally had zero reason to care. We took it, it cost a lot of money, we really showed the British who wears the pants around here but in the end there was nothing to do there and no reason to care or even hang around.

 

^^ This is such an important observation, and one I have been giving quite a bit of thought to myself.

 

The "Port Battle Meta" as I refer to it is really the driving force behind the vast majority of gameplay currently. That meta is defined as:

 

1) Grind NPC fleets & admiralty missions to level up as quickly as possible

2) Get into a 3rd/1st rate

3) Have more 3rd/1st rates than the other faction

4) Win Port Battles

5) Paint map with your faction's color

6) ???

----

7) PROFIT!!

 

Unfortunately, as experience across all the PVP servers shows, owning ports just doesn't matter in terms of game mechanics beyond the "map painting" ego boost they provide.

 

On those servers, we have seen nations reduced down to a handful, or even just one port, able to "come back from the dead" once they got just a little bit coordinated and organized (and, to be fair, reinforced by defectors from other factions).

 

If owning ports truly mattered, this would have in theory been extremely difficult - but in fact, these factions were able to do so in very little time.

 

Most damning of all: I have spent tens of hours sailing "deep behind enemy lines" in the waters of the USA and Britain on PVP1 and PVP2 to find nothing but generic NPC spawns... not a player in sight.

 

These factions  "own" huge swathes of the map, but you'll rarely find them actually doing anything in most of those areas. All their player traders focus on the ports near their capitols, because they can get everything they need there with minimal risk, and their supposed PVP players operate out of risk-free Free Ports near the "front lines" of whatever group of ports they want to paint next... grinding NPC fleets and admiralty missions to get as many players into 3rd & 1st rates as possible.

 

The net result of the current mechanics is that the majority of PVP happens at port battles, where (as of this writing) you must show up with a 3rd/1st rate to even justify your space in the 25v25 format.  But... actually owning those ports is almost entirely irrelevant to a faction's success, as they are able to easily satisfy all their needs from just a handful of ports - or no ports at all, as many have seen, since gold, XP, resources and ships are so easy to acquire from PVE grinding.

 

I feel like a few things would really help flesh out the Naval Action experience, and help make PVP outside the "Port Battle Meta" actually matter to the game. Also, these suggestions would improve the pure PVE experience as well, as they encourage more player participation in all aspects of the gameplay.

 

A ) Make resource acquisition truly important to the ability to acquire all-powerful 3rd and 1st rate ships => eliminate the ability to capture NPC 3rd rates, require 3rd & 1st rates to be available through crafting or PVP capture only

 

B ) Make resources spread out enough that player traders will have to actually transit the open world to get them => eliminate the teleporting of ships (but keep the ability to teleport players between outposts), change the distribution of resources so that "everything you need" isn't inside or right next door to the capitol

 

C ) Continue to reduce NPC resource spawn => if players want to have access to the resources of these far flung ports, they will have to create and defend viable trade routes and the ports they rely upon OR focus on privateering / pirating to take those resources (and ships!) from other factions by force. This worked for England and the Netherlands in real life, after all.

 

D ) Reduce the cargo capacity of traders so that more trade ships will have to be sailed through the open world in order to satisfy a faction's resource demands => allow NPC crews to be hired to sail these trade ships on "autopilot" in case player traders don't want to personally spend the time doing so. Allow multiple trade ships crewed by NPC to form a trade ship convoy. Allow NPC and/or player warships to be hired to escort these NPC trade convoys, if desired.

 

The implication of these suggestions: competition for resources and port ownership will become extremely important to RVR, but even if a faction, for whatever reason, is reduced down to a single capitol port + free ports, they will still have impactful means by which to fight back.

 

It wouldn't be in the form of port battles at first - it would be widespread privateering/piracy to acquire those resources and ships denied them by port loss... a whole new gameplay mode that is currently irrelevant in an RVR sense.

 

The corollary implication is that large nations will have a real handful trying to protect all conquered ports in their empire while at the same time preventing privateering and piracy from robbing them of the resources they need to sustain those empires. And the larger the empire gets, the harder it will be to sustain, even if the faction in question has a high population of players.

 

Likewise, a small player population will still have a viable means of achieving access to the resources they need, by physically taking them from the larger faction via privateering/piracy.

 

No matter what, lots of PVP would be encouraged, which for a PVP game is definitely desirable.

Edited March 29, 2016 by surfimp

[Sam32120]

I posted a suggestion for diplomatic implementation here:

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12652-forms-of-goverment/?p=227954#entry227954