PVE Server and PVE zones - Preliminary announcement.

[LeBoiteux]

The major issue with the Gulf of Mexico as a PvE area is its emptiness, the lack of islands. I guess that's why there are so few people sailing there. 99% of PvE activity will be concentrated along the coast and will undoubtedly consist in boring return trips from and to home ports. 

Can't we imagine someday the implementation of secret islands in the Gulf of Mexico (and bot circulation from and to them) to encourage voyages across the Gulf ?

(= randomly generated islands, ideally being changed from time to time)

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by LeBoiteux

[woodenfish]

Is it possible to have a list of the ports that will be in each countries PvE zone? and also what will happen to any Free ports in the area - We are trying to decide what to do with our clan warehouse and don't currently know whether it will fall into one of the zones.

Also if you have resources in a port in the area - what happens to them?

[BadBenny]

Why even bother, simply just make PvE a single player game ffs, there are enuff care bears as it is.

[Sir Texas Sir]

49 minutes ago, woodenfish said:

Is it possible to have a list of the ports that will be in each countries PvE zone? and also what will happen to any Free ports in the area - We are trying to decide what to do with our clan warehouse and don't currently know whether it will fall into one of the zones.

Also if you have resources in a port in the area - what happens to them?

I believe they said the ports will remain the same but the free ports will be turned into that nations ports.  Any items in those ports that was owned by another nation will be changed to the PvE nation host and it would be as if your stuff was in a captured port.  Depending on how they do the merger you prob will want to dump every thing out of the clan warehouse as it won't redeem onto any one if they make a serer and PvP1 and PvP2 is merge into that server.  We don't know who is getting merged into who other than for sure that PvE is being merged flat out into the PvP servers you pick to redeem your stuff at.  Why don't we wait until more info comes out.  Devs said they where going to post more info today.

 

[William Livingston Alden]

why dont u flag those users which want to play PVE - like the smuggler flag - so you can see it is a real player only interested in playing PVE - and you dont need those zones and everyone can sail free.

When you want to play PVE only then you set this flag (cant be undone) and all is good.

 

 

[Sir Texas Sir]

23 minutes ago, William Livingston Alden said:

why dont u flag those users which want to play PVE - like the smuggler flag - so you can see it is a real player only interested in playing PVE - and you dont need those zones and everyone can sail free.

When you want to play PVE only then you set this flag (cant be undone) and all is good.

 

 

BECAUSE FOR THE 100 TIME THIS CAN BE ABUSED.  Every one will be flagged when they haul stuff and you kill the trader hunter for PvP players and well it's been way exploited in several other games that have had such systems.  If you don't want to risk PvP than stay in the PvE area, it covers 1/3 of the dang map and most players rarely see past there first few regions from there capital.   You don't see us PvPers bitching about losing a 1/3 of the map do ya'll?

On a side note i play to have my smuggler flag on at all times in the PvE zone in case a PvEr wants to get a bit brave and frisky.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Sir Texas Sir

[William Livingston Alden]

nothing can be abused when u are flagged permanent as a PVE player what u cant change (is a permanent choice u set at the beginning and cant be undone). so u have three kind of players the bots, the PVP and the PVE players.

and you are not the speaker here man!

 

[JobaSet]

Just now, William Livingston Alden said:

nothing can be abused when u are flagged permanent as a PVE player what u cant change (is a permanent choice u set at the beginning and cant be undone). so u have three kind of players the bots, the PVP and the PVE players.

and you are not the speaker here man!

 

Let me set my alt to PVE and never lose anything yea go for it mate.  I like that plan

[Sir Texas Sir]

21 minutes ago, JobaSet said:

Let me set my alt to PVE and never lose anything yea go for it mate.  I like that plan

and said alt can go into ports and get the things you need to craft ships and than be safe to never get attacked while they have it in there cargo....yep can't be exploited.

[JobaSet]

1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

and said alt can go into ports and get the things you need to craft ships and than be safe to never get attacked while they have it in there cargo....yep can't be exploited.

SHHHHhhhhhh  Come on Texas don't tell them how I would use it. No risk all the rewards what could go wrong

[Jack Jones]

5 hours ago, Tiargo said:

These are measures because they do not know what you are doing!
You  destroy this Game!

When I start 2500-2800 Player.

Now   450 hahaha.Server split 160 each Server?.Great Job !!
Do you already have a new job?

Go and lie down in a dark room for a while......

[Ned Loe]

Dear Devs,

How about this?

Add Reputation system. Only with reputation you will be able to control PvE and PvP. 

For example:

When wipe is done players will get a message with 2 options. 

'Pick your experience - PvE or PvP. '

PvE players will be labeled with Neutral Tag. Attacking Neutral (PvE) player will result in reputation penalties. Neutral Players will have restrictions to sell at regional Markets. Regional Markets must be introduced and they should be the main trade post per region where PvP players can see the whole market activity. Neutrals can only sell to local ports where PvP players will be able to buy their goods and move them to Regional Markets for resale. New Market system must be introduced, system that will be able to display goods for sale in ports and regions around the world (potbs style). Neutral Player can remove their Neutral Tag (One time thing) when they are ready to experience PvP world with no limitations. Once Neutral tag is removed they can only go back to Neutral only by spending real $ at the Game Store. Once you become a PvP player you won't need PvE. 

Reputation will make sure that attacking Neutral players will grant you negative Rep + No Reward. Accumulating negative rep will result in higher taxes, chat restrictions, limited ship command. This is how you control PvE/PvP.

Instead of dividing world into pve/pvp mess I suggest to dictate rules using Reputation, that will allow PvE players to roam the whole world safely knowing that those who will attack them will get penalized. In addition a small limitation to trade market should not hurt them. They still will be able to sell goods to local ports, but won't have access to Regional Markets with advanced Trader tools. 

Restoring Rep should be slow and painful. Ex. loose -50 rep when attacking Neutral Player and earn +5 rep per Port Battle only. Get -100 Rep and you won't be able to sail 1st rate, -200 2nd rate etc... Eventually you will end up in a sloop if you keep sinking Neutral players. 

Accumulating good rep will unlock new possibilities such as access to Tribe Market and Black Market.

I think you guys just don't want to spend time and money making this game unique. It's very sad. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Ned Loe

[Corona Lisa]

On 21.3.2017 at 1:04 PM, admin said:

If there is no asset wipe all assets and ships will be moved to redeemables. We are currently trying franticly to save the assets and have no answer yet. 
We will provide the decision tomorrow. If we don't wipe assets we won't be able to test economy changes and mission changes before release. 

Any news to this?

[Sir Texas Sir]

38 minutes ago, JonSnowLetsGo said:

Any news to this?

Just wait we will get an update of info soon.....even though yesterday they said we will get an update today.....well when the freak is SOON.  Is that in a few hours, days, weeks, months?

 

I got a feeling they aren't going to update crap to us.  ALl ready saying Testserver will be updated in a week or two.  Which means there is no way they will make the 2 week window they gave us for the patch as one week is all ready over.  So they won't make the 30 day window which means it's more like end of April start of May when we see this patch.  All the while they won't do the patch we where expecting of the current stuff on test server we been testing.

I mean it's been over 3 1/2 months since our last patch and looks like it will be another month and half..  No longer they keep loosing players.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Sir Texas Sir

[JT Scott]

So if I'm reading this correctly, this will allow a pve player to switch to pvp and keep his assets (in the form of redeemables).  I'm all in.  I like the smuggler flag change as well.  Lots of guys on pve server just keep their smuggler flag on all the time.  And I think the addition of a bunch of geezers (like me) to the pvp servers will mix things up.  

[Genma Saotome]

On 3/16/2017 at 3:16 PM, Darayavahus said:

So i assume that PvE area won't produce any materials? Or we won't be able to transfer materials between PvE and PvP zones? Cause without it you will create a lot of carebears trading only in PvE area and sending mats to Free town's by delivery system.

AFAIK there is a very simple solution to this.  If you examine the .json files for ports, stores, etc., etc., you'll note there isn't anything there to designate the server.  If the DEV's change that and add a tag to designate individual "virtual worlds" (tag the ships as well) it would be possible to have many "virtual worlds" on one machine.  One of those could be for PvE, another for PvP, and each would know nothing  about the other.  There would be no exploits because there would be no overlap between "virtual worlds". PvE players and their game assets would remain completely invisible to PvP in every regard as would PvP remain invisible to PvE players. That solves the DEV's concerns about too many servers as well as everyone elses' concerns about implementing safe zones.

The idea could be carried further to create different "virtual worlds" based on experience... some for noobs, others for middle-level players, and others for experts.

Frankly, I'm more than a little shocked this is not what was originally proposed.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Genma Saotome

[Genma Saotome]

On 3/21/2017 at 1:16 AM, Remus said:

No, that won't work. Part of the reason players choose a PvP server - unpleasant as it may seem to pure PvE players - is so they can pounce on traders carrying valuable cargo. This is entirely legitimate gameplay. Adding PvE only ships or players onto a PvP server rather defeats the purpose.

The only way i think PvE and PvP can be combined on one server is by area, as the devs propose. Optionally there could be a mechanism where players could flag themselves for PvP and then attack other PvP-flagged players in the PvE zone, but I don't see the point; why go to the PvE zone if you are looking for PvP?

Even a PvE zone - and certainly such a large one as this - has its problems for a PvP population. My own shipbuilding activities happen to be largely within the zone, so in future my hauling will be entirely risk-free. This might sound good to some, but I personally would rather take the risk, and just occasionally the rewards as well.

No, that's not true.  Look at the .json files: there isn't anything there that identifies which "server" the data is for.  If you change that so the data files can properly identify which "virtual world" the data is for then the DEV's could put multiple "virtual worlds" into each .json file and therefore multiple "virtual worlds" on one machine.  Add a tag field to the ship database too so the ships remain within one "virtual world".  Each "virtual world would be wholly invisible to all of the others.  By this means they could run everyone on one machine and no player would see anything different than what they see/know today.

IMO they could have done w/o telling us peep and (1) their costs would go down by how many servers they could retire, and (2)nobody would have noticed a thing.  Instead they come up with this safe zones idea and they get a firestorm on their hands.  Odd to say the least.

[Remus]

19 minutes ago, Genma Saotome said:

AFAIK there is a very simple solution to this.  If you examine the .json files for ports, stores, etc., etc., you'll note there isn't anything there to designate the server.  If the DEV's change that and add a tag to designate individual "virtual worlds" (tag the ships as well) it would be possible to have many "virtual worlds" on one machine.  One of those could be for PvE, another for PvP, and each would know nothing  about the other.  There would be no exploits because there would be no overlap between "virtual worlds". PvE players and their game assets would remain completely invisible to PvP in every regard as would PvP remain invisible to PvE players. That solves the DEV's concerns about too many servers as well as everyone elses' concerns about implementing safe zones.

The idea could be carried further to create different "virtual worlds" based on experience... some for noobs, others for middle-level players, and others for experts.

Frankly, I'm more than a little shocked this is not what was originally proposed.

I do examine the json files, as it happens, but looking at a data dump gives no information whatsoever about a server's capabilities. Personally, I'd rather trust Admin:

On 21/03/2017 at 0:48 PM, admin said:

Total number of possible bots is 1500.

 

[Cmdr RideZ]

Pirates cannot have allies.  Would it make sense if they were the only ones able to smuggle?

[Preble]

@admin--Since one of the upsides of PvE is the lack of ahistorical territorial change through player conquest, what opportunities might there be going forward to reimpliment PvE for single cruisers doing commerce warfare and port raiding?  It could be particulaly interesting to revamp PvE as a more single-player-oriented "historical mode," with AI units operating according to actually historical weather patterns and therefore historical strategic imperatives/historical trade and convoy routes.  For example, westerly prevailing winds led inbound (i.e. inbound to the Caribbean, outbound from Europe) British convoys to Barbados and then Jamaica; outbound convoys from Jamaica would sail around the western coast of Cuba through the Florida Strait and back northeast to Europe along the easterly trade winds.  The implimentation of raids would also add port combat to PvE and would therefore increase popularity among both the current player base and more low-key players (which, as you have stated, is a market to which you must expand in order for the game to remain a viable enterprise).  Would welcome your thoughts.

[Genma Saotome]

4 hours ago, Remus said:

I do examine the json files, as it happens, but looking at a data dump gives no information whatsoever about a server's capabilities. Personally, I'd rather trust Admin:

 

The data files are pretty simple.  For shops there is a bit of data that is, essentially, a time stamp, and then what follows are row after row of data that describes each shop and what the have (qty onhand, high price, low price, etc).  It kinda looks like this (please excuse syntax errors):

var Shops = [Timestamp,"Regularitems"[lots of data]]

 

What I'm speaking of is a bit like this:

var Shops = ["Logicalworldid":01234"[Timestamp,"Regularitems"[lots of data]"Logicalworldid":56789[timestamp,"Regularitems"[lots of data]] etc. ]

 

Now in that example I've made a second set of "Regularitems" with all of its data.  What distinguishes one set from another is that each set is individually part of one (and only one) block of data called "Logicalworldid".  That keeps them separate.

 

A different way of accomplishing the same result -- and it may be easier -- is to simply set up multiple directory trees, each with their own server program.  There may well be other gotchas that make that impractical but the concept of multiple virtual worlds on one machine is what I'm pushing as it makes so much more sense than this safe zone idea.

 

Unless, of course, the purpose of the DEV's proposal has nothing at to do w/ servers and everything with pushing everybody into one place simply because they need/want more people in one place than they have right now.  IMO it that's the case, well, ok, but they should have been upfront about that being the reason.

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Genma Saotome

[Baron Von WeisenCracker]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 8:56 AM, Justme said:

Typical PVE participation trophy player winner response. You want a sense of accomplishment without doing anything.

PVE is too limited in this game to justify its own server.  An overly simple trading system and ganking AI ships may appeal to a small percentage such as yourself, but few here seem to want a game you turn on then walk away to take a nap.

Just admit it.... you are CLUELESS

[AngryPanCake]

Quote

You don't see us PvPers bitching about losing a 1/3 of the map do ya'll?

So let's see, it appears to me that as long as PvP players can attack PvE players flagged as Smugglers it's ok to lose a 1/3 of a map that no one thinks is useful anyway.

After reading through this thread, it is clear that there is a significant animosity between the 2 types of players. I am not sure whether this started right here after the announcement of the servers merger or it has been going on for much longer. In any case, both groups seem to be unhappy with this move in their own way.

For my part (PvE player), I am unhappy to see the reason I bought this game be taken away. Someone mentioned something about PvE players throwing a tamper tantrum because they did not get what they wanted. Let me clarify something: the tamper tantrum was not about not getting what we wanted, cause tamper tantrum it was. The reason for it is the taking away of what we already had and not wanting to be forced upon something we did not want, ie being the targets of other players! So, please don't make it sound like we are a bunch of cry babies or ungrateful children.

Many of the PvE players bought the game just for that, being able to play on the PvE server. Whether the PvE server existed at the same time as the initial PvP server or "started shortly afterwards cause of request from veteran Sea Trial players" as stated by SirTexas, the fact of the matter is that some people paid money to play on that server in that play style. When you pay for something and get something different, what's that usually called? Does bait and switch sound familiar? Though I do not believe the developers are doing this maliciously, I think it is a cost-effectiveness issue that's forcing them to merge servers.

So if we are bitching for losing the reason we play this game, it is quite understandable. Whether or not PvP'ers are bitching about losing a 1/3 of the map is beside the point, ya'll!

As far as commenting about this:

Quote

Typical PVE participation trophy player winner response. You want a sense of accomplishment without doing anything.

I will humbly use Plato's quote:

Quote

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by AngryPanCake

[Macjimm]

Old Question - unanswered: 

•  three nations will have 2 spawns - main pvp and secondary pve.

Can the Devs elaborate on these spawns?  Explain: Does the character differ between spawns?  If so is a player limited to PvE or PvP character based on the initial choice? Or is it simply a different spawn location? 

New question: 

Will the 5 minute rush timer to hurry out of the battle ending screen be forced onto players in PvE area?  Or will PvE players be allowed to leave the battle ending screen leisurely because there is no good reason to impose a limit and make them leave quickly?

 

 

[LeBoiteux]

48 minutes ago, Macjimm said:

New question: 

Will the 5 minute rush timer to hurry out of the battle ending screen be forced onto players in PvE area?  Or will PvE players be allowed to leave the battle ending screen leisurely because there is no good reason to impose a limit and make them leave quickly?

You're talking about PvP in PvE zone, right ? I guess tagging players will simply be disabled in the PvE zone (except probably for smugglers).

Edited March 23, 2017 by LeBoiteux