RvR PvP PvE meaningful RvR

[Wilson09]

Following the development priorities discussion and many other discussion on this forum (server merge, warzones, pirate mechanics and so on), I´d like to draw your attention to one of my suggestions (I try to shorten my argumenting and make a poll out of it):

 

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 (and many other online games) 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. Also reworking

the Ports making it more defensable, adding clan owned Ports with investment

in defensive infrastructure and so on...

 

The game might finally die.

 

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

(Well one solutions in those mentioned games has alway been to bring the achiever/explorer/socializer/killer-type

of player together and let them play on one server. This can be achieved by introducing articifical "warzones"

and safe zones.)

 

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.

 

Observation: Players like the the challenge and meaningful contest!

 

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 Admin-order

to 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 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 finally.

(And what to do after the grind ended? And yes, my private grind came to an end,

there is nothing else to do anymore).

 

But how to win this game? 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

being 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. And I believe hardcore-killer-players would benefit more, pursuing a definite,

well-defined goal, rather than finding pleasure in humiliating/trolling/gangbanging newbies and others.

 

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 somehow 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 in the long run. 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 mission gangbanging, get rid of it...NO stupifiying mssions needed in a tournament

(somehow earning marginal RvR or war points...just another idea)

- starting conditions can be adjusted (limit ship availability for 1 faction), introducing penalties

- players take their XP and infrastructure (warehouse) into game, nothing else or bigger ships are available to minor factions from start (everything thinkable)

- game experience can be "tightened" by limiting the tournament game to special times only,

making ist more "dense" and intensive... (just a thought; weekends only...)

 

Disadvantage:

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

- problem of 24h gaming not solved, different world time zones

(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 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.

 

Finally, he will leave and look for a more "meaningful PvP"-game,

where his desire to "conquer and win" eventually will be fulfilled.

 

I´d really be interested, if the community fancy the idea of a PvP with a "hard close", a finite ending

with winners a loosers and regular restarts.

 

I made my statement, and I am looking forward to see the reaction of the community /Admins.

 

The options to vote for are:

1. Great idea, RvR-PvP with winning condition and open-sandbox merging PvP / PvE (by introducing warzones)

2. Great idea, RvR-PvP with winning condition and open-sandbox PvP + seperate PvE

3. Nice idea, can be thought of at a later stage.

4. Keep everything as it is, open sandbox-PvP and Pve

5. OMG, awful. What is this guy dreaming of?

Edited March 29, 2016 by Wilson09

[Wilson09]

Hopefully, the ADMIN will read this and tell me again, "you are dreaming of another castle..."

[Captain Boneboys]

Voted option :5, just so we can get off to an equal start.

Good luck 

[Wilson09]

5?

Have a look at it again?

Did you get it right?

 

Guys, please read a post BEFORE you vote on it.

 

Also, any criticism is welcome !

Edited March 29, 2016 by Wilson09

[Galileus]

Eh, I appreciate the story telling, but you wither tell a story or relay an idea. In all that massive wall of text, you basically say "hey, let's make win conditions!" - and this is as deep as you go into it.

 

And no, I don't like it. I would never play it. Too grand. I don't care. I'm there to play the game, not to work on some bs "goal" that I might ot might not like, forcing me into wars with whoever and taking any incentive away. It would be awfully static and boring. And to implement it in a way that would make it interesting? Would be a LOT of work. And it would split community. And-and-and. And I see honestly nothing positive in it.

 

It's fine to like an objective-based gaming, but the fact you don't like it doesn't mean it's the only viable choice. Sorry.

[Wilson09]

I did not say I did not like the game. But the players-problem applies to me.

Having max. XP insight and figured out how the game works (explored, achieved, socialiced)

and killed enough, I will be one of those guys turning casual.

 

I did enjoy the game for the time being.

 

Hardcore only again with meaningful contest.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Wilson09

[KrakkenSmacken]

I like the idea of both a PvE land where you can do PvE things in peace, learn the basic game, and possibly because of the Steam account XP link, have a place where you are "safe".  (Not for me, for others)

 

while at the same time

 

A battle ground with determined win/loss conditions and a planned beginning/middle/end.

 

Really all one has to do is look at what Crowfall has in mind, because I personally think that model is going to revolutionize the entire MMO way of thinking about "worlds".

[Wilson09]

Crowfall? Remains to be seen.

We all had it before (Shadowbane), Devs need to promise a lot to raise attention.

 

Interesting, one of those guys was involved in Pirate101.

 

Also this statement:

"With a themepark-MMO, you can never loose, with a Sandbox-MMO you can never win.

If you can neither loose nor win, why are you playing at all?"

 

On PvP1, finally, being PIRATE...we will all get you !

[Jomppeli]

Eh, I appreciate the story telling, but you wither tell a story or relay an idea. In all that massive wall of text, you basically say "hey, let's make win conditions!" - and this is as deep as you go into it.

 

And no, I don't like it. I would never play it. Too grand. I don't care. I'm there to play the game, not to work on some bs "goal" that I might ot might not like, forcing me into wars with whoever and taking any incentive away. It would be awfully static and boring. And to implement it in a way that would make it interesting? Would be a LOT of work. And it would split community. And-and-and. And I see honestly nothing positive in it.

 

It's fine to like an objective-based gaming, but the fact you don't like it doesn't mean it's the only viable choice. Sorry.

+1 to that.

No for winning conditions and hell no for warzones.

[KrakkenSmacken]

Crowfall? Remains to be seen.

We all had it before (Shadowbane), Devs need to promise a lot to raise attention.

 

Interesting, one of those guys was involved in Pirate101.

 

Also this statement:

"With a themepark-MMO, you can never loose, with a Sandbox-MMO you can never win.

If you can neither loose nor win, why are you playing at all?"

 

On PvP1, finally, being PIRATE...we will all get you !

 

Yea Crowfall is a "to be seen".  Fortunately they look like they are going to be releasing something sooner rather than later [cough Star Citizen cough].

 

Well theme parks MMO's if I understand them from my time on DDO online, is instance based, finish mission X, gather rewards and move on.  The only "loose", is failing to finish Mission X, and maybe some equipment damage. So loss is minor.

 

"Sandbox never win" I get that.  Five minutes after you log off the world is back to the same, or very similar state as it was before you showed up. Very little, if any impact on the world is made by the players.

 

Both models avoid lasting impact of conquest.  The only games I know that succeed in dealing with conquest let the game end, and a new one begin. Ferion is a great example of how that model can last for decades, even with relatively simple basic mechanics.

 

They could even make special arenas with unusual configurations.  For example a world where all ports are shallow water, and no ships above Merc's even exist, or a beginner conquest world where the highest rank allowed in is X. Or a world that if you enter it, it will completely reset you to 0/0 and you have to start from scratch with everyone else.

 

Incidentally Ferion runs game worlds for 6 weeks.  

Q: How long does a game last?, and how often do you start new games?

A: A standard game can run up to 6 weeks, and we start new games every week.

 

Funny, but that seems to be how long it has taken the numbers in this game to drop off, and people to get basically kicked out by the current national conquest mechanics.  PvP 2 server for example, the poor Spaniards have no coal source's left.

 

In NA we have a theme park where battle instances are the "quest", with the wrinkle that it can be defeating a player is can be your goal, with the attempt to cram in conquest, but no winning condition.

 

Absolute direction must be decided, and should be relayed to the audience/customers.  I would like to know if/when I am wasting my time considering certain alternative options.

 

Why even play?  Because the journey and game mechanics are fun.  

Why play Risk, you just put the board away at the end of the night?

[surfimp]

I think we are already seeing some unofficial and possibly unintentional versions of what is being described here in the form of mass defections from large factions to those of smaller factions.

 

On PVP1, Spain has seen some influx of new players (presumably from other factions) which combined with greater internal harmony has seen them recapture quite a few of the ports they'd lost around Cuba and now, even into the Yucatan.

 

On PVP2, Pirates had been reduced down to just one or two ports but then saw a mass influx of defectors from other nations and, prior to the die-off in population on that server, a big increase in the number of ports they controlled throughout the Bahamas.

 

In both of these cases, these factions had essentially been "defeated" and then, for a variety of reasons, saw a big influx of defector players largely pulled from the "winning" nations. Perhaps those defectors had tired of internal faction politics, maybe they were seeking more PVP, maybe they just wanted a change of pace... who can say. The net result was, in essence, a bit of a soft reset.

 

I think the suggestion here has merit... assuming that additional gameplay modes outside the "Port Battle Meta" can be realized as fully-fleshed, meaningful (in an RVR sense) and enjoyable pursuits in their own right. I've outlined my suggestions here and won't repeat them in this space, but assuming the necessary changes can be made, we would see PVP outside of port battles get a big boost, and actually holding ports would be significant as well as costly.

 

It's understood that declaring a given faction had "Won" could potentially imply some kind of map wipe, which pure sandbox players surely don't like. The implication is that we need to envision what "Winning" would imply... we wouldn't want, for example, a situation where someone with a big and profitable trade network would actively support an enemy faction just for the sake of forestalling his faction's victory and incipient map wipe... as one example of a situation I could imagine resulting. We also probably don't want to further split the community between a PVP/RVR server with victory conditions, a PVP sandbox without, and a PVE server.

 

So... is there a way to institute a victory condition that is meaningful, but also doesn't undermine the sandbox experience? I don't know, but it's probably worth discussing, because the current "paint the map" schema is truly meaningless by any conceivable measure.

[Wilson09]

@surfimp:

Really appreciating you read it and came up with some good points.

[Precious Roy]

I thought in EUIV you won by achieving goals you set for yourself? How do I vote for enriching the sandbox into a life-like matrix of economic and small-scale conquest possibilites?

I always thought Eve sounded awesome but I'm a one-planet, low to medium-tech kind of guy. I love NA so far but that's what drew me, the rumor EVE under sky and on sea.

Smaller factions will be better as underdogs defiantly reaping some benefits rather than being handed a big fat 'you lose' every month. 

[Precious Roy]

Oops wrong button sorry meant to edit.

I think merge servers and do away with pve server but give pvers competitions for ai hurt and trade volume.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Precious Roy

[Fonseca]

The moment they introduce "safe zones or combat zones" is the same moment I will abandon this game, a couple of days ago I was moving a traders cutter full of gold around Corrientes (Cuba) when 15 brits from a clan intercepted me, I love moments like that when there is no safety. So I think Pve should stay Pve and Pvp should stay Pvp .

[Roche Brasiliano]

Exploring....the only way i can play the game for years is the implement of uncharted islands and ports, native tribes (friendly or unfriendly) to trade or conquer, random achievements like gold and loot in hidden wrecks, buried treasures, XP for trading and pro trading co. and diplomatic relation as well. Anyone remember the board game WAR?

I dont care about who wins or lose in a port battle and all that shit. I want to do diffferent things in diferent days: fight, fishing, exploring...I just have one certain: if this game keeps its pace only in pew pew bang bang, i will quit to play it eventualy in some point at near future.

Btw, thats why i chose the pirates faction: the freedom to do what i want, when i want and the way i want. If i find someone to join me, fine; if dont, i dont care, will do it alone and have fun as well.

Edited April 4, 2016 by wollef

[Wilson09]

Btw, thats why i chose the pirates faction: the freedom to do what i want, when i want and the way i want. If i find someone to join me, fine; if dont, i dont care, will do it alone and have fun as well.

A true "explorer". Yes, I have this "heart" beating in me as well.

But I suppose, the game fells short in this departement....

 

Oh, yeah. Same reason I chose pirates for....okay boy.

Let´s go hunting together, right?

 

Add me as "friend" ingame....

[Roche Brasiliano]

A true "explorer". Yes, I have this "heart" beating in me as well.

But I suppose, the game fells short in this departement....

 

Oh, yeah. Same reason I chose pirates for....okay boy.

Let´s go hunting together, right?

 

Add me as "friend" ingame....

 

Added, pal

Are you at PVP NA 2?

If yes, cya you there.

[Wilson09]

No, right now, PvP 1.

[SoulPYTHON]

I dont know what to think of this

 

Personally coming from Eve online where there is the no winning condition/endless gaming and it works fine-ish i cannot fathom that people are having a hard time in this game,

Sure u have the grinding here which is hard baked in the game to progress to better ships but that u have in all other games to, and this is still an alpha game and in development so all for more improvement on that system

 

But to splinter this game even further into a PvP, PvE and a Hardcore Server i dont see the point really.

 

1 server for everything would be much better:

• More people to socialize / interact with
• Casual Players can do their thing if its PvE or PvP, with more people u dont have to go far to do something

It is a game where u set your own goals as a person and a nation, to conquer the map, have pvp, do pve with people

Your Poll options are somewhat Biased tho, no 1 server option to vote for where everything RvR, PvP, PvE is mixed, i guess that is not your cup of tea for a true MMORPG

Doubting between option 4 and 5 at the moment.

Edited April 6, 2016 by SoulPYTHON

[Slamz]

The problem with win/lose is that it ends up being a "quit point". I think that would be extra true in a game with so many nations, like this one. Dutch may be fighting France and having a great back-and-forth war but the British end up meeting the win condition by crushing the Pirates and the U.S. so Dutch and France just have the rug pulled out from under them. How many of them will quit at this point? You just took their fun away and told them to start over!

 

I do think we need a lot of work to flesh out the RvR game and make "the forever war" more interesting and controlled but I don't think victory conditions (quit points) is the solution.

[Wilson09]

Don´t see the argument "quit point". If there´d be victory conditions (British killing off Pirates / US (=not realistic winning conditions by the way),

and the British closing in to win it, both factions Dutch/French should have something else to do than fight it out.

 

Usually, implementing such "big" winning conditions '(like, crush 2 factions or own the whole world) would result in your mentioned "forever war" and there´d be no difference.

 

But let me raise one heavier counter-argument attacking my own proposal.

 

Implementing winning conditions would certainly add more contest and spice to the game. Clans would even more and more

feel pushed to play 24h per day, putting pressure on everyone. This might result in a bad outcome and "burn-out". Here,

I see the main problem.

 

Only solution would be to implement gaming in a "controlled" environment, i.e about the same player numbers each faction,

arranged gaming times, where you need to  focus on your actions and play in a way to pursue the target, optimizing your efforts.

This would result in some sort of tournament, being played at specific times. A completely different game.

Problems: commitment, players restricted to gaming "windows"

 

In my opinion, could work, but another story, not easy to implement.

It is just an idea I had, following any card-game or boardgame-logic.

[Xander Tyrann]

I very much like the idea of a Win/Lose conditions, having played MMO's with goals like that and i've always found the PvP more rewarding and less static. I have ideas of the way i would have it work is quite a lot different to OP's and i plan to do a write up at some point, but i think there are many positives that will create more willingness to fight and make it easier to find combat in the first place that could fit in largely with the system we have now but require a fair amount of work.  I don't expect it will ever happen due to the community the game has currently attracted and will be contributing to making the decision.

 

 

 

The problem with win/lose is that it ends up being a "quit point". I think that would be extra true in a game with so many nations, like this one. Dutch may be fighting France and having a great back-and-forth war but the British end up meeting the win condition by crushing the Pirates and the U.S. so Dutch and France just have the rug pulled out from under them. How many of them will quit at this point? You just took their fun away and told them to start over!

 

I do think we need a lot of work to flesh out the RvR game and make "the forever war" more interesting and controlled but I don't think victory conditions (quit points) is the solution.

 

 

From my experience its the opposite, its a 'rejoin point'  where lots of people who took a break come back as the world refreshes and people want to get in from the start, clans tend to switch sides and it becomes a surprisingly different contest.  People who were on the losing side suddenly become on the OP side for example and big clans look for the challenge of kick-starting a small nation. Its an exciting time where you don't know what will happen.

 

 

 

Edit: additionally there is often a period of grace after the war has been won where people can do what they want for a couple of days/week where you know all your resources are gone soon there no penalty. devs can hold special events in this time too.  Can be quite fun

Edited April 12, 2016 by Xander Tyrann

[Wilson09]

Rejoin points can also be "refreshing". Think of a clan becoming to dominant in a faction.

Others don´t like it and quit. Right now, they have the "burden" of switching and loosing

all their stuff and money if they want ot have a change...

[Vllad]

 

 

I want a RvR-game with a WINNING condition.

I want be part of a winning or loosing faction.

 

 

Please site an example of where this worked properly.

 

I have played games/MMO's with winning conditions and none of them worked. POTBS and Guild Wars both had map winning conditions and both of them just put everyone on the path to quitting or always team jumping.

 

The best RVR pvp games ever made were games where the war went on and on and on.

 

Everyone loves the idea of playing for stakes, hell even I like that idea but it really has no place in an RvR MMO. Winning conditions is counter productive to the MMO concept.

 

If you want any kind of regular population playing this game NEVER introduce winning conditions.