Thoughts on making a PVE server viable

[James Rackham]

I would love to have port battles on the PVE server, either AI fleet sails in and attacks your port and you have to defend, if you fail to win the port is lost and you have to attack it back, would need some other way of building hostility to enable the attack but it does need something, more aggressive AI, more events so that large scale battles are possible.

 

It would certainly attract me back to the game for sure, the PVP server is just too toxic and ganky for me I get no fun out of it and the PVE server is a little too quiet for me

[Anne Wildcat]

Maybe when raids are brought in they can bring raids against AI to the PVE server?

[Remus]

1 hour ago, James Rackham said:

I would love to have port battles on the PVE server, either AI fleet sails in and attacks your port and you have to defend, if you fail to win the port is lost and you have to attack it back, would need some other way of building hostility to enable the attack but it does need something, more aggressive AI, more events so that large scale battles are possible.

 

It would certainly attract me back to the game for sure, the PVP server is just too toxic and ganky for me I get no fun out of it and the PVE server is a little too quiet for me

I've been mulling over how this might work for PvE, for I have seen a couple of other posts on the subject.

Clearly players of one nation cannot attack another nation's port, for without PvP the defendimg nation would have to rely on AI shjips which hardly seems fair. So it seems the attack has to be AI-generated and players have to defend. So far, so good.

If the player-defenders win then they will all have had a jolly good time and everyon'e happy ... but what if they lose? Does the port get taken away from that nation? This is quite a step removed from AI aggressiveness in Open Water - if you don't want to fight on OW you can pretty much run away, but running away from a port battle means losing the port.

There's another, historically correct, approach. Still involving an aggressive AI attacking (or, to put it in historical terms, blockading) a port. There could even be an AI blockading fleet outside the port on open water which traders have to run the gauntlet of to get their materials in and out. Defenders can choose to sail out to join in battle or remain in port where they cannot be attacked. But still, although the defending players have now consciously decided rather than been forced to fight, they could still lose. What then? Their offline compatriots who farm resources in the port won't be best pleased that a handful of players decided to engage in battle they weren't compelled to, had their fun (presumably) and, as a result, mucked it up for everyone else.

So where does this leave us? I think port battles where ports can change hands isn't possible in PvE, but blockading fleets might work:

• AI randomly decides to blockade a port with a suitably large fleet or fleets
• AI fleets appear on OW and attack all players entering or leaving port (if they can)
• Defending nation players can join together in the port - which can be organised like a port battle with a definite time, contention points and so on - to flight the blockading fleet
• If the players win, they get rewards and the blockading fleet(s) disappear
• If the players lose, they lose their ships (if they failed to escape) and the blockading fleet remains, but the port still remains in their hands.
• After a period of time (a week, perhaps) the blockading fleet disperses.

Or you could just use existing events for large scale battles, but I do rather like the idea of blockading fleets, myself.

[AngryPanCake]

On 4/1/2017 at 9:11 AM, Remus said:

So where does this leave us? I think port battles where ports can change hands isn't possible in PvE, but blockading fleets might work:

• AI randomly decides to blockade a port with a suitably large fleet or fleets
• AI fleets appear on OW and attack all players entering or leaving port (if they can)
• Defending nation players can join together in the port - which can be organised like a port battle with a definite time, contention points and so on - to flight the blockading fleet
• If the players win, they get rewards and the blockading fleet(s) disappear
• If the players lose, they lose their ships (if they failed to escape) and the blockading fleet remains, but the port still remains in their hands.
• After a period of time (a week, perhaps) the blockading fleet disperses.

Or you could just use existing events for large scale battles, but I do rather like the idea of blockading fleets, myself.

I like your idea a lot, that will add so much action to the PvE server. Adding AI aggressiveness in the OW, improved resource distribution, polished UI at the end and this game will appeal to a large audience.

 

PvE Alliances:

If I understand correctly, alliances in PvE follow the ones in PvP, right? If so, this doesn't make much sense in PvE, since players/clans are not attacking each other. I also understand that these alliances rarely change in PvP and if linked to PvE, they won't change there either. What if the alliances in PvP/PvE were not linked?

In other words, once AI is updated, improved and allowed to actually attack players and "blockade" ports, the alliances also become AI controlled. Instead of the same old nation blocks, AI will randomly create/switch alliances every so many days. In my opinion, this will provide particular opportunities to PvE players to fight/defend against different nations instead of the same unchanging enemy nations.

 

PvE New Content:

Some new content/missions that can be linked to the AI alliance system could be new Admiralty Combat Missions such as: Destroy X number of Y class of Ships belonging to Z Nation or Capture so many Enemy Traders (before the war ends). These new Admiralty orders will be time limited and somewhat challenging if you have to sail far away from your home port to reach enemy waters to hunt down enemy ships. Time limited in that you have to do it while your nation is at war with the one listed in the order and knowing alliances will eventually change, one has to do it fairly quickly. Challenging in that you are looking for a specific type of ship that might be way out of your usual sailing area, because the nation(s) you are at war with right now is(are) way off. Working out a reward system that's worth wining will provide the incentive to engage in those missions. Some rewards that are Nation specific for example. Completing Admiralty War Missions against Spain might yield goods/mats that are specific to that Nation and so forth.

[Remus]

3 hours ago, AngryPanCake said:

PvE Alliances:

If I understand correctly, alliances in PvE follow the ones in PvP, right? If so, this doesn't make much sense in PvE, since players/clans are not attacking each other. I also understand that these alliances rarely change in PvP and if linked to PvE, they won't change there either. What if the alliances in PvP/PvE were not linked?

The whole RvR system on the PvE server appears to be turned off, and in any case alliances look like being abandoned on the PvP servers so it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep them for PvE, and since players cannot engage in meaningful RvR on the PvE server I'd be inclined to make every nation enemies of all the others. But I'm the wrong person to tell PvE people what RvR system they should have as I play on PvP servers. My last post above was just an idea that came to me which I thought I would share.

[Jean LaPointe]

Over the past couple of years I have watched the changes being made to this game through the forum and getting involved with the game over a year ago. There are definitely two types of people playing this game and we can all see the two sides people lean toward with the writings herein.

You have the extremes on both sides (it is almost like politics). There are the PvP purist that see only a world with out any AI what so ever, all people all the time as one side of the scale and you have the player who has been raised on a computer game being a single interaction with the computer without any interaction with a live person on the other side of the scale. As with all extremes they are in the minority. Most of the players here gravitate towards the middle but are very steadfast to their preference of game play.

All large developments over the past year has been toward the PvP as they were experiencing the largest issues mainly centering around Port Battles and the ways the economics were to played out. Just the economics changes alone have been major enough that after the two huge changes implemented made changes in the direction of how to craft and trade to see a wonderful variety of trading opportunities we have today. As a solo player across all servers I spent more time in the trades and never got involved with the Port Battles aspect as I have found the individuals fighting over the mechanics and complaining how others were exploiting the mechanics of the Port Battles was more than what I wanted to be a part of.

Some here will remember a time where people were starting to get their first 1^st Rates and were using them in the Port Battles. The up roar of those then who wanted to limit the number of 1^st Rates against the 2^nd and 3^rd Rates. They wanted a Historical representation of these battles and months were spend fighting over who could or could not use a 1^st Rate – the fighting this cause with no changes made was a real waste of time.

Any changes (other than PB's as that aspect is turned off in PvE) that were employed on the PvP servers was also employed on the PvE server. When the use of AI was limited on the PvP servers it was also limited on the PvE server as well. While the PvE server has benefited from the changes in the game made for the PvP servers, it has been shorted by the concentration development for the PvP'ers world.

With the upcoming wipe and the disconnect of information across the three servers a true and expanded play-ability developments can be applied to the PvE server. A world where we can have an aggressive AI (more so than what the PvP server calls for), there is an idea that mentions something about blockades that would make a great addition to the PvE experience. AI fleets don't need to take a break and go to work or sleep or have to take care of the hundreds of small jobs the wife demands to be completed. The PvE world can be very similar but very, very different than the PvP world, as it should be.

As the wipe approaches, I look forward to developments in the PvP game that will make it a greater experience than is already is.

And, still waiting for a section of the Forum to have a PvE segment of it's own for the development and expansion of the PvE version of the game. A place where those involved with the PvE server can collectively meet and discuss issues of the game without the interference that comes from the PvP players as it does currently.

 

Naval Action,

One Name, Two Games.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Jean LaPointe
Grammer and spelling

[LeBoiteux]

Well, currently developed PvE content is certainly designed for both PvE/PvP servers and I don't think that NA devs are ready to spend ressources on specific PvE server issues...

[Jean LaPointe]

2 hours ago, LeBoiteux said:

Well, currently developed PvE content is certainly designed for both PvE/PvP servers and I don't think that NA devs are ready to spend ressources on specific PvE server issues...

Hopefully in time, sir. Hopefully in time. 

[AngryPanCake]

On 4/3/2017 at 6:01 AM, LeBoiteux said:

Well, currently developed PvE content is certainly designed for both PvE/PvP servers and I don't think that NA devs are ready to spend ressources on specific PvE server issues...

Beside PB's, any content designed for PvP servers would certainly work for PvE. I don't think PvE game play content needs a drastic extra effort to make it work.

[LeBoiteux]

6 hours ago, AngryPanCake said:

Beside PB's, any content designed for PvP servers would certainly work for PvE. I don't think PvE game play content needs a drastic extra effort to make it work.

My point was about a sub-forum dedicated to PvE. Given their limited ressources, devs have to favour PvP development. So any current NA PvE content is dependant on the constraints of PvP and PvP-ers' needs and that content is to be implemented the same way on both PvP and PvE servers. For instance, unaggressive AI is (temporary ?) PvE content designed for PvP servers. Moreover, for now, PvE content might be limited. A sub-forum dedicated to PvE might also create tensions between PvP-ers and PvE-ers. Thus it might not be that useful, as things are now.

Edited April 7, 2017 by LeBoiteux