Too much room to hide: narrowing down mission ports

[Slamz]

But what you propose is really looking like a ill conceived attempt at "revenge" at PvE players not playing PvP.

 

It's really, again, about the game's focus.

 

You're more like a guy complaining that Counterstrike doesn't have enough support for crafters. The reason Counterstrike doesn't have an alchemy lab and potions is not "revenge against crafters". It's just not that game's focus and it would detract from it's focus to implement crafting.

 

 

So that's the question I see Naval Action facing. What is its focus? If admin wants to come out and say "This is meant to mainly be a solo PvE game where we can sail ships against NPCs in controlled environments" then hey, it's his game. If that's going to be the focus, a lot of us will quit arguing and find something else to play.

 

But I feel like from his other posts, he enjoys the PvP aspect. If he wants that aspect to continue and still be fun and active 6 months from now then he's going to have to find ways to shift focus away from instanced PvE content and back towards reasons and means to fight.

[Galileus]

It's really, again, about the game's focus.

 

You're more like a guy complaining that Counterstrike doesn't have enough support for crafters. The reason Counterstrike doesn't have an alchemy lab and potions is not "revenge against crafters". It's just not that game's focus and it would detract from it's focus to implement crafting.

 

BS. It's like complaining CS doesn't have enough support for casual gamer.

 

And it does.But let's take another example, that is quite closer to my stable. Star Craft - which is obviously aimed at pro comp. Focus and longevity - bah! - existence of Star Craft is caused by it's multiplayer scene. Does it mean SC doesn't get a solo gameplay? Last I checked, SC got massive solo player focused campaigns and content. It got massive playground for casual players. What it does not have is a "play 3 more comp matches to unlock next campaign mission" prompts.

 

And you know why? Because it wishes for SP player guys to become MP ones in the future. That's why it introduced co-op content, that's why it introduced modded game types. Because some of these players that try SP will try MP as well. Some of these in turn will try out comp. 

 

Now admittedly, Game Labs has nowhere near enough money to give us as much content as Blizzard can. That does not excuse "executing" PvE players because the are "not worthy".

 

Your proposal has nothing to do with "alchemy labs in CS". It is more like forcing a casual CS player to play comp match, get cursed at by teammates, be rotflstomped, be rated bad due to inexperience and general lack of interest in comp matches.... to unlock 3 more casual games. This is insane.

 

This is not about the game's focus. The game's focus is obviously PvP. This does not in any way mean you should force people to play PvP and just snark at the ones who give up due to ganks. I agree all the way - PvP is king and there should be push towards it for PvE players.

 

The problem is you don't want to push PvE players towards PvP, you want to push them off of a cliff to PvP hyaena filled pit.

[Slamz]

And it does.But let's take another example, that is quite closer to my stable. Star Craft - which is obviously aimed at pro comp. Focus and longevity - bah! - existence of Star Craft is caused by it's multiplayer scene. Does it mean SC doesn't get a solo gameplay? Last I checked, SC got massive solo player focused campaigns and content. It got massive playground for casual players. What it does not have is a "play 3 more comp matches to unlock next campaign mission" prompts.

 

Starcraft is a good example only by contrast.

 

There you have a massive (costly to build) PvE game, where adding an excellent PvP option costs them almost nothing -- same units, same mechanics, same network as used for PvE co-op. The PvP is just a simple arena setup so "finding a fight" is as simple as logging in.

 

Naval Action is the opposite of Starcraft. It's closer to something like DOTA in terms of the problem it's facing: in order for DOTA to offer a single player experience like Starcraft, they would probably need thousands of developer hours generating content, maps and probably new game mechanics. DOTA is purely an online arena PvP game (with some very basic bot fighting options). Their focus is on the PvP and that's a game they can make and sell with relatively little development.

 

And that's where we are today, here. We have a potentially excellent PvP gameIF the game can help us actually find people to fight! (It's a big if!)

 

You want safe missions? That's going to get very boring very quickly even for the people who are voting for it. To keep it interesting, the developers will need to spend thousands of hours creating interesting content and probably totally new game mechanics to help keep it fun, interesting and varied.

 

Otherwise we have a real problem:

• PvE that takes people out of the world and is not varied enough to stand alone as a game.

  +

• PvP content in a huge map where we need to find people to fight and won't last very long as "boring open world sailing simulation".

 

We must focus on one of the above things to make them work.

One of them requires thousands of hours of development time to flesh it out while the other just needs some simple mechanics changes to push players into each other.

 

Choose wisely.

[Galileus]

Nice speech. Bloody useless nevertheless. Now re-read my last post ^^'

[Slamz]

Nice speech. Bloody useless nevertheless.

 

[Galileus]

Sigh. You always cherry pick what you want to quote, right?

 

I told you to re-read what I said, because you went on a tirade on how there needs to be a focus on PvP, to which I already agreed.

 

At this point I'm not sure if you're simply not interested about a discussion or honestly think yours is the only possible solution and to propose something else is to disagree with the principale. But since you prefer to post catchy jpgs rather than use the reading option... have fun.

[mouse of war]

Yes. Good. Needs to happen.

 

Frankly the map is too big and if we don't find ways to concentrate the players, you will soon find servers empty.

 

North America prime time population has crashed on both PvP2 and PvP1 now, mainly for lack of ability to find people to fight.

 

I don't believe anyone leaves the game because they can't find people to fight

1. Get in a ship

2. Sail into enemy territory

3. Fight (the pirates are very obliging in this respect)

 

Simples!

Edited April 30, 2016 by mouse of war

[LeBoiteux]

Devs have found a good incentive to have PvEers take risk in enemy areas :

War effort points are gained by

(...)
6. PVE missions in war zones
 
This gives everyone the opportunity to influence the war and decide on its result

[Slamz]

Devs have found a good incentive to have PvEers take risk in enemy areas :

 

Yeah and that may be a nice new option that addresses the problem.

 

If you just want money and XP, sure, do missions wherever. It will be boring and it will be PvE because nobody will ever find you but if you just need to level up or gain cash in peace, it's available in the middle of nowhere.

 

If you want something important for the war, then you must go to a war zone, where you will more likely end up fighting players. You can't get war points in the middle of nowhere.

 

 

Presumably a lot of max rank players will prefer these war zone missions because they have no use for XP and little use for money.

[eriks]

I don't get this it's hard to find someone to fight problem. I TP to my outpost in Atwood and I have PVP in minutes.

 

A pirate or a Spaniard who wants PvP just TPs to Sunbury.

 

If I want to PVE and trade unmolested I can do that within a few minutes of Charleston. Sometimes Pagan Pete and Long Beard get all piratey up there, bit not really that often.

[Slamz]

A pirate or a Spaniard who wants PvP just TPs to Sunbury.

 

My issue with it is that it's usually a choice:

 

PvP that matters (which I cannot find)

PvP that doesn't matter (of which there is plenty)

 

I can find PvP in Sunbury or Ile-a-vache but that's far away from Spain and really has little or nothing to do with any war we are in. It's hardly better than just joining Small Battles: meaningless pewpew for fun, far away from anything that really matters.

 

And then if an attack that DOES matter starts up, I'd better have my teleport up to get home! (And then maybe it turns out to be a fake attack and now I'm stuck back home where nothing is happening).

 

 

A newbie might look at the map and assume there's good fighting around Tumbado or Tordo or Sisal -- these are areas where enemy territory meets -- but in fact there is nobody there, because there's no reason to be there.

 

 

To put it another way, if we only wanted PvP, then "sea trials" would have been a boundless success and the open world wouldn't even be needed. We would just kill each other for fun forever. But pointless PvP that has nothing to do with the open world war/RvR game feels shallow and gets boring pretty quick. We need to focus the PvP into something that feels more related to the RvR game and not just random far away ports.

[victor]

To OP: your concern is very situational and is due mainly to the underpopulation that affects PVP 2 server. 

 

In a PVP 1 server scenario the problem you point out just simply does not exist (or it's not remarkable, at least) and that explains why the vast majority of people voted against your proposed change.

Edited May 4, 2016 by victor

[Fastidius]

Firstly they should get rid of the fleet vs single mission and build a decent matchmaker that matches the enemy ships and adds 1 ship if less than 5 ships 2 if less than 9  and 3 ships if it s 12 in group...they should be the average tier ship that is added.

 

Secondly - Dont make AI ships on the freindly side..we dont need nor want them.

 

 

Thirdly add different types of missions like couriers, explorer & trader missions.

 

fourth missions should be far less lucrative.....like 1 3rd the gold and maybe 2 3rds the xp.   basically the matchmaking is stupid and makes it mostly trivial

 

Fleet missions should be available from regional capitals only.....all other missions should be any where so you can do exploration/trade stuff etc anywhere but farming is from region capitals and should be anywhere along the boarder of the area  ie you have to go patroll the area you own looking for fleets only your group can see...ie replace the crossed swords with a dummy ship sprite with a colour or something and make it sail a pathway......that way you have a "search and destroy" not a go here icon.  you have to stay close enough to help each otehr but be able to cover ground etc

Edited May 4, 2016 by Fastidius

[Slamz]

To OP: your concern is very situational and is due mainly to the underpopulation that affects PVP 2 server. 

 

In a PVP 1 server scenario the problem you point out just simply does not exist (or it's not remarkable, at least) and that explains why the vast majority of people voted against your proposed change.

 

Wrong.

 

I am talking about PVP1, which is the server I play on. I switched over a month ago.

[Bach]

We're testing this game. If you think the pvp servers are currently healthy log in and look at the low populations. Something isn't working. Part of it is probably players reaching max levels and simply not finding anything else to do they find entertaining. Now on a pvp server that shouldn't be a normal problem as the xp ladder isn't really the goal. Pvp should still be happening at end game levels.

Now how does that fact tie into this arguement? Because we don't necessarily have a pvp server or game just because we name it so. The OP is correct that the many of remaining active players are spending large amounts of time secluded into PVE instances. I know I currently do. Why? is probably a varied reason for each individual player. But the point is there isn't a lot of pvp on the "pvp" server. part of the OP suggestion is based around the idea that we simply can't find each other all that often so we just fall back and PVE. This is probably true in some cases. Possibly many cases. Concentrating player movements would make it easier for us to find each other for pvp. Theoretically if the opportunities for open world pvp increase, the pvp should increase and the population of players interested in pvp should increase.

I'm not sure basing it around missions is the best way or even the only way. But if we want open world pvp, other than port battles, we need reasons for players to be at sea available for pvp and they need to be able to find each other.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Bach

[Bach]

Perhaps I can offer some badly needed perspective to this discussion. Right now I think most of us are only looking at this from one sided narrower perspectives.

So, it's a pvp server with an open world sand box for pvp hunting. There are players that want to be real pirates, privateers, officers, profiteers and since they joined a pvp server they are hoping to fight me while doing it. Problem is, they have to find me.

Now if I look for pvp, I log in and if I really want pvp I have to sail to an enemy capital. Once there I grab a player if I can. By the end of the battle I'll be surrounded by enemy players outside. As I should be since I did sail to their capital. But why am I sailing to their capital looking for 1v1 pvp? Because I at least know I'll find something there even if realistically I should get my butt kicked on the second round. If I don't do this I may pick some spot hope for the best and sail for an hour while half watching TV. This usually doesn't work so well so I may just take a mission and pvp or hit some traders.

Now if I PVE, I can grab a mission right off the dock. Sail out to it and fight. I generally just AFK sail for how ever much time it take by calculation to get near the mission. I'm not sure what the point of having the mission so far away from the port is. I'm guessing they want others to have a chance to pvp me. Otherwise the mission could just be triggered from the port. But the jokes on the devs because I usually don't hang at my capital. I hang on the frontier. So I just AFK sail because your chances of finding me to pvp are lottery like. Funny thing too, out in the frontier missions I run into French NPC 3rd rates that payout huge rewards even though the French and any port of importance are no where around. Sometimes I'll just collect stuff at my frontier factories. Here is the really funny part. You also have only lottery level chances of stopping my trader. I often run AFK with over a half million gold or more of goods in my hold. I should be a pirates wet dream. You should want to hunt me, get you friends to hunt me and flood the game with pvp players looking to hunt targets like me. But the laughs on you as I don't even leave the frontier. Why should I? The merchants at the frontier ports have just as much money and commerce capacity as London itself. So I AFK sail and you don't get to pvp my merchant ships.

Basically, Slamz is right in a way. The frontier towns are as good as the capitals and there are no real reasons in game for me to ever even use the capital or a regional. Not very realistic and worse it's really stifling open world pvp because that depends on players moving in predictable patterns. If there are no actual market hubs, military bases or ports of more importance then there are no predictable travel routes.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Bach

[haemol]

How about solo missions in own territory and fleet missions close to other nations' ports?