Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Development priorities 2


  

1,567 members have voted

  1. 1. Please vote on the priorities for the next 3-4 content patches

    • Hired crew and officers (incl supplying them with provisions, food production and fishing)
      188
    • Overhaul of War & Peace mechanics and national relations, pirate role and national alliances
      832
    • Open world PVE: epic events, more variety of fleets, more missions (incl delivery missions)
      365
    • Arranged PVP: Leaderboards, tournaments, pvp events, duels and ow duel flags, balancer improvements
      74
    • Overhaul of resource distribution, labor hours rework, crafting improvements, exploration for resources
      108


Recommended Posts

I voted for PvE content but from reading through this thread, War and Peace seems to be the prevalent choice. I was thinking of mentioning officers and crew as my second choice but I changed my mind. W&P is 2 now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't WAR, ie, RvR lead to more PvP. And shouldn't PvE somehow support RvR and hence PvP. So some attention to RvR is needed. Spain at war with Spain from earth 2 should lead to more PvP, shouldn't it. As for piRATes, they, in my opinion, should be out there pirating, not negotiating peace treaties. With Rat players playing, there should always be PvP opportunities available. If this is going to be an MMO, there needs something that appeals to a broad base of players. If it was the general consensus that this would be only one type of game then it would be Wooden Warships Arena and not Naval Action MMO.

 

But there goes Hyperion preaching again. Got a little put off by a few of the replies here. The only thing that I really care about is being able to sail my ship and go fight other ships people or ai controlled. When I get bored with that it will be nice to have other things to do in game. Even at this stage of the game, we got that. Hell, I been happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Sacapus makes a good point, only the Open World PVE choice benefits both the PvP and PVE players. Therefore it should be the priority.

 

You can't PvE when you have nowhere to PvE from without being jumped on by 20 guys sitting in port waiting for a tag.

 

OW mechanics in terms of nationalities and how they interact and improving mechanics to remove loopholes is a cornerstone for both PvP and PvE experience. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This poll is about choosing one's priority, not about discarding features. 

 

So I voted for the only thing that is, I think, totally new and that OW urgently needs : giving meaning to OW sailing with an additional activity "Exploration for ressources" (option n° 5) as there are currently embryonic :

- crew management (option 1),

- War & Peace mechanics with the current "All nations at war" system and informal clan diplomacy (option 2), 

- PvE fights : bots can be found and fought in OW (option 3),

- fair PvP fights that can be organized by chat / forum posts (option (option 4),

and as all these features will be implemented sooner or later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that is not listed as a future development but I think needs to happen is mission chains.

 

I know its just pve stuff but the grind is so bad right now, some missions chains could make it a little more interesting.

I think their is a huge need for delivery missions that give a person the reason to sail around the map and explore.

 

Even if they had this as an option I still would have voted for something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, many people enjoy playing as pirates, so many in fact that it is becoming unbalanced. It is hard for me to imagine a player base who wants to play in SOLs being alienated when there are so many other nations to choose from. I am not against pirates in SOLs. I don't think it would be too difficult for pirates to obtain SOLs. I just don't think it should be practical, except in the case of raiding. Also the more ports a nation has the better the booty, to discourage picking on small nations.

 

 

I agree with this mostly, but saying "nerf" just has a bad ring to it. No matter what course the Devs take, I hope pirates evolve into more of a high risk, high reward system that can keep larger nations looking over their shoulders, and smaller nations have room to grow instead of just disappearing from the map.

James from what I understand if a faction is not working out (due to faction being over run or language problems etc) people go pirate because it's the only way to keep their stuff. This means pirate numbers are inflated beyond belief at least until the wipe. Once pirate mechanics change I am betting their will be more realistic numbers of pirates who actually want to play like pirates. Because we won't see pirate super powers the size of the biggest nations. But small pockets of raiders who can do special raids and such in smaller ships.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Diplomacy changes includes reworked Port Battles, I tend to agree with the popular choice.

 

Even if I am repeating myself, PB are the end game content and it is currently pretty broken IMHO,

- Why are they so few shallow water ports compared to deep water ones? Think of new players please

- Why can any Joe Blog with some gold buy a conquest flag even if he can't assemble a fleet to go attack that port? Abuse/exploit prevention and giving the possibility for zerg attacks (14 plus PBs in an evening by same nation)

- Why can't allied nations truly team up in PB?

- Why isn't there a cap BR that may vary by ports?

- Why can a nation place over 80% of their ports in a [4am-6am] slot?

This list goes on and on ....

 

So change diplomacy is fine but you need to link that on day one with a recrafted PB system.

Edited by la Touche-Treville
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overhaul of War & Peace mechanics and national relations, pirate role and national alliances (455 votes [54.30%])

Would like more information about this because I don't see how this formal alliances forced by game mechanics/votes will solve anything.

Does pirate role in this means rework of pirate mechanics or just stating that pirates will get even more population boom because pvpers from nations don't want to be tied down by carebear peace alliances?


Interesting but not surprising to see majority vote for diplomacy while the actual reasons that could potentially drive RvR conquest and diplomacy are neglected. (Overhaul of resource distribution, labor hours rework, crafting improvements, exploration for resources (42 votes [5.01%])

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overhaul of War & Peace mechanics and national relations, pirate role and national alliances (455 votes [54.30%])

Would like more information about this because I don't see how this formal alliances forced by game mechanics/votes will solve anything.

Does pirate role in this means rework of pirate mechanics or just stating that pirates will get even more population boom because pvpers from nations don't want to be tied down by carebear peace alliances?

Interesting but not surprising to see majority vote for diplomacy while the actual reasons that could potentially drive RvR conquest and diplomacy are neglected. (Overhaul of resource distribution, labor hours rework, crafting improvements, exploration for resources (42 votes [5.01%])

I think it's more about players wanting developers changing pirates to what was originally intended as opposed to the dull nation clone they are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting but not surprising to see majority vote for diplomacy while the actual reasons that could potentially drive RvR conquest and diplomacy are neglected. (Overhaul of resource distribution, labor hours rework, crafting improvements, exploration for resources (42 votes [5.01%])

 

+1. Emphasizing the importance of the whys of fighting, i.e. ressources (option 5), is a very interesting view.

 

Also interesting to notice that each option of this poll deals with one aspect of fighting :

- Option 1 : How to fight ? Crew management.

- Option 2 : Who to fight against / ally with ? Diplomacy.

- Option 3 : Improving PvE fights.

- Option 4 : Improving PvP fights.

- Option 5 : Why to fight / conquer a given land ? Ressources.

 

Too bad the motivations to fight and the way to dominate (ressources) are so overlooked by voters for the moment in a RvR game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see .. Traders XP ... or a Trader skil that we can join Enemy Ports .....
Bigger ships for traders ....
More Quantity items to buy ...... not 200 at once just more
More differences between Port Goods.... Ports need to be better choice of what they need or not ... for example .. not so much ports need compass wooods... or if there are 3791731971 shipyards .. why the port dont need a lot of logs ... 

just ideas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overhaul of War & Peace mechanics and national relations, pirate role and national alliances (455 votes [54.30%])

Would like more information about this because I don't see how this formal alliances forced by game mechanics/votes will solve anything.

Does pirate role in this means rework of pirate mechanics or just stating that pirates will get even more population boom because pvpers from nations don't want to be tied down by carebear peace alliances?

Interesting but not surprising to see majority vote for diplomacy while the actual reasons that could potentially drive RvR conquest and diplomacy are neglected. (Overhaul of resource distribution, labor hours rework, crafting improvements, exploration for resources (42 votes [5.01%])

 

Basically, you cannot vote really on changes you want to have,

as it is not stated what kind of changes are planned really?

 

You are buying "a pig in a poke" and as a consumer,

you´d not buy the changes with so few information given.

Complicating the vote, most of the issues mentioned are linked.

 

Despite the broad direction is clear.

 

That´s one reason, players might voted

(I think it's more about players wanting developers changing pirates to what was originally

intended as opposed to the dull nation clone they are now)

 

in favour of

Overhaul of War & Peace mechanics and national relations, pirate role and national alliances (455 votes [54.30%]),

desperate to get any change, not knowing the outcome though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well, I would like to have two votes :P Went for diplo and pirate faction rework, coz with land in battles it could finish the RvR part, with all basic features online, leaving "only" tweaking. PVE content is next in line and much needed. Rest can wait (pvp tournaments are tempting tho....).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Damn you, I want it all....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overhaul of War & Peace mechanics and national relations, pirate role and national alliances (455 votes [54.30%])

Would like more information about this because I don't see how this formal alliances forced by game mechanics/votes will solve anything.

Does pirate role in this means rework of pirate mechanics or just stating that pirates will get even more population boom because pvpers from nations don't want to be tied down by carebear peace alliances?

Interesting but not surprising to see majority vote for diplomacy while the actual reasons that could potentially drive RvR conquest and diplomacy are neglected. (Overhaul of resource distribution, labor hours rework, crafting improvements, exploration for resources (42 votes [5.01%])

 

Sometimes players think that they want a certain feature hoping it will fix the problem 1. In reality problem 1 is solved by something else or cannot be solved at all. Take RvR motivators for example. Lets talk about them.

 

Motivation for war is Spice - a universal resource required for something. If you control Spice - you win. 

 

Lets assume for a moment that Spice exists in Age of Sail. Then alliances/and war/peace declaration mechanics are not solving the dominant nation problem. Dominant nation/alliance will eventually control all spice destroying other nations. In a grand open ended war-game it sounds like a great feature. It replicates real world to an extent (because in reality most wars did not make sense). 

 

Slowing down conquest or creating more refined port battle mechanics etc. are actually not solving the problem but exaggerate it - because they also favor the dominant alliance.

 

We have to be honest with ourselves and tell things as they are. At this stage players and devs should not be on the opposite sides of the trenches - but work on this together. 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. Sometimes you need to change a different thing to help the player achieve what they want.

 

Also players should consider others and long term consequences when talking about features (thinking them through). One great example: AI fleets. This feature was universally loved by 80% of players (silent majority). 20% of players hated this feature - because it interfered with their PvP. Disabling this feature made the game worse for 80% of players who did not care about port battles, or large pvp engagements and took those players off the map (reducing pvp opportunities for players who wanted those bots out)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes players think that they want a certain feature hoping it will fix the problem 1. In reality problem 1 is solved by something else or cannot be solved at all. Take RvR motivators for example. Lets talk about them.

 

Motivation for war is Spice - a universal resource required for something. If you control Spice - you win. 

 

Lets assume for a moment that Spice exists in Age of Sail. Then alliances/and war/peace declaration mechanics are not solving the dominant nation problem. Dominant nation/alliance will eventually control all spice destroying other nations. In a grand open ended war-game it sounds like a great feature. It replicates real world to an extent (because in reality most wars did not make sense). 

 

Slowing down conquest or creating more refined port battle mechanics etc. are actually not solving the problem but exaggerate it - because they also favor the dominant alliance.

 

We have to be honest with ourselves and tell things as they are. At this stage players and devs should not be on the opposite sides of the trenches - but work on this together. If a player wants to kill sandbox because its better for the game - they should say I want this because y

 

Also players should consider others when talking about features.

One great example: AI fleets. 

This feature was universally loved by 80% of players (silent majority). 20% of players hated this feature - because it interfered with their PvP.

Disabling this feature made the game worse for 80% of players who did not care about port battles, or large pvp engagements and took those players off the map (reducing pvp opportunities for players who wanted those bots out)

Could the possibility of ai fleets be disabled once you have started a pvp fight be an option? Also could ai fleets be a pve benefit for just big pve events or a massive pve battles/missions?  just wondering.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Slowing down conquest or creating more refined port battle mechanics etc. are actually not solving the problem but exaggerate it - because they also favor the dominant alliance.

Why?

 

If you slow down conquest, the small nations don't have to try and fight off eight flags in one day, and don't get blitzkrieged out of existence.

 

Instead, they can scrape together their fleet of 25 ships and put up a fight.

 

 

You are certainly right that slower conquest won't solve the problems of unbalanced RvR: the big factions will still bully and beat up the small ones.

 

But won't the losers get to have more fun along the way? The superpowers still get their fun, but hopefully the little guys don't quit in frustration. Slow conquest is also more correctable by occasional map resets.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

 

If you slow down conquest, the small nations don't have to try and fight off eight flags in one day, and don't get blitzkrieged out of existence.

 

Instead, they can scrape together their fleet of 25 ships and put up a fight.

 

 

True.

But the dominant nation can muster a lot more ships at that time. So instead of having 8 flags in various places they bring 8 large fleets to 1 port. Small nation might not even get to a port battle and will be intercepted several times.

So what i mean by my comment is this: conquest will be slower but the outcome will be the same - weak nation will either lose all the ports or become a vassal, unless it is Switzerland.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting post admin.

 

My vote goes to:

Open world PVE: epic events, more variety of fleets, more missions (incl delivery missions) 222 votes [25.64%]

 

I have not played on PvP servers yet because I was expecting it to be gankland. An absolutely unbalanced gankfest influenced by how population spread between each nation/faction/whatever. And balancing PvP is quite hard, one of the reasons being you can never satisfy whole playerbase.

 

The Open World PVE system looks like a safe bet. It is actual game content available for everyone willing to try it out. It's free entertainment (which is what a game is meant for) which will bring benefits for all players. XP, Gold, crafting stuff, you name it.

 

Go have a read on battle of Trafalgar or battle of the Nile... Having that kind of events ingame would be truly awesome. AI blocking one port with a large 10-20 ships fleet, and players joining as a raid to defeat them. That kind of event could be used in PvP aswell by replacing the AI which is blocking the port with opposing faction players, but always with an equal amount of ships to avoid unbalanced fights due to nation size. Just an idea though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like all of those additions and together they will bring this game much closer to release, but in my opinion the most important is PvE content. 

 

Adding more PvE content affects both PvP and PvE players' experience. Currently PvE endgame is limited to 3 3rd rates and a 5th rate fleet, and that can be dominated by just a few high rank players. Once you reach high rank and high ship strength the PvE content sharply drops off. 

 

More PvE will make the gameplay more immersive and give players more to do!

 

Thanks devs this game is amazing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. Sometimes you need to change a different thing to help the player achieve what they want.

I'd like it if RvR was more a matter of Economy, ie of controlling maritime routes, protecting trade convoys, searching rare ressources, trading and owning useful ports (that is with useful ressources for your own nation) than just a matter of controlling as many "empty shell" ports as possible because I wish that RvR results would depend on everybody, not just on PB fighters : PvEers and PvPers ; Traders, Fighters, Crafters, Explorers... In others words, the RvR success indicator should be the wealth of a nation, not just the number of owned ports.

 

PS : maybe one way to slow down conquest would be to make useless ports for an Economy very expensive to own.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to be honest with ourselves and tell things as they are. At this stage players and devs should not be on the opposite sides of the trenches - but work on this together. 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. Sometimes you need to change a different thing to help the player achieve what they want.

 

Also players should consider others and long term consequences when talking about features (thinking them through). One great example: AI fleets. This feature was universally loved by 80% of players (silent majority). 20% of players hated this feature - because it interfered with their PvP. Disabling this feature made the game worse for 80% of players who did not care about port battles, or large pvp engagements and took those players off the map (reducing pvp opportunities for players who wanted those bots out)

Well let's be honest - these 80% players picked wrong server in this case. I don't go to PvE server and start demanding some hybrid PvPvE because they should also think about me and my pvp... You know pve and pvp people don't mix well and you seperated servers which is good step. Do you really want to make them mix in PvP server?

Long term consequences of AI fleets and PvE grinding on PvP server - Even the best pvp players are grinding their ranks and gear via pve because it's the most efficient way. Those who hate pvp and still for some reason play on pvp server are allowed to get everything without ever doing ANY PvP to progress or reach their favourite ships = very low average player skill level. You maybe think running down these players who don't want to pvp is fun but in reality it is no different from farming bots, we want someone who wants to and is willing to fight back and give us good fights, not bashing someone who never did any pvp because he didn't have to or want to. Someone who even if he doesn't like fighting, can contribute to RvR through logistics, trading or economy, not just level up while completely disconnected and isolated from pvp and rvr and then start demanding more PvE once he runs out of content on PvP server.

TL;DR Give players on PvP server more reasons to actively take part in RvR and seek PvP instead of worrying about PvE players on said server being unhappy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Slowing down conquest or creating more refined port battle mechanics etc. are actually not solving the problem but exaggerate it - because they also favor the dominant alliance.

 

...

But the dominant nation can muster a lot more ships at that time. So instead of having 8 flags in various places they bring 8 large fleets to 1 port. Small nation might not even get to a port battle and will be intercepted several times.

 

 

 

 

Then what needs to be added is more and better perpetual comeback mechanics.  It's not classic "open sand box" philosophy, but it will be required if there is any form of conquest in the final game.  That or end game goals and resets.

 

An example for your example.

 

If port strength could be bolstered by the defending smaller nation, for example by improving the towers based on how many active players are in a current port, or how many ships are currently docked at the port.  Then 25 per side instance limitation could play as an advantage to a smaller nation trying to protect a smaller area as they would be more likly to be on the spot, and have a stronger initial defense.

 

Add in some other advantages, such as instant TP cool down to a port under attack if it represents the last national source for a resource (so they don't have to pass that 8 fleet blockade), then at least feel like you had a fighting chance.

 

For the larger nation to protect every port they would have to fleet an exponentially growing number of ships in a larger area, and require more people to do so and spend more money/effort doing it.  Eventually they would run out of ability to protect areas due simply to the limitation on number of outposts a single player could have.

 

Additionally, a weaker nation would be fielding a stronger resistance, so that unless they were the last other nation in the game, there would probably be easier targets for the large nation to work against.

 

If in the name of "open sandbox" your not willing to put in any perpetual comeback mechanics to offset the "Hero" slippery slope and resource constriction, then yes, barring internal infighting and nation flipping, one dominant nation is inevitable.

Well let's be honest - these 80% players picked wrong server in this case. I don't go to PvE server and start demanding some hybrid PvPvE because they should also think about me and my pvp... You know pve and pvp people don't mix well and you seperated servers which is good step. Do you really want to make them mix in PvP server?

Long term consequences of AI fleets and PvE grinding on PvP server - Even the best pvp players are grinding their ranks and gear via pve because it's the most efficient way. Those who hate pvp and still for some reason play on pvp server are allowed to get everything without ever doing ANY PvP to progress or reach their favourite ships = very low average player skill level. You maybe think running down these players who don't want to pvp is fun but in reality it is no different from farming bots, we want someone who wants to and is willing to fight back and give us good fights, not bashing someone who never did any pvp because he didn't have to or want to. Someone who even if he doesn't like fighting, can contribute to RvR through logistics, trading or economy, not just level up while completely disconnected and isolated from pvp and rvr and then start demanding more PvE once he runs out of content on PvP server.

TL;DR Give players on PvP server more reasons to actively take part in RvR and seek PvP instead of worrying about PvE players on said server being unhappy.

 

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.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...