Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Forthcoming patch final discussion.


Recommended Posts

Players come and go constantly in EA games because there is hardly enough content to hold the playerbase. Once enough content comes in, the game will hold more pop between patches. I think this new RVR system we'll see atleast 80% pop return and we'll hold that pop for much longer 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 832
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Captains This is a result of this long discussion We would like to present the final review of the coming features in general (some of which are partially on testbed).  Economy

Oh, i'm not saying you didn't do anything for us. But while you did stuff for the PvP'ers, you also introduced stuff that made Crafting, Trading and PvE grinding much more important and time consuming

You were brainwashed by haters mate. Alts infestations were invented by players to explain their inability to win port battles. There are alts for sure but the problem is drastically overrated. 2

Posted Images

I do NOT think that the management/taxation part should be left to the players/clans. We all know what it did to the individual contracts. This will lead to Clans take control of a region put a stupid taxation fee and players who are established there will have to move or they will just quit.

The thing is that, aparently decisions are allready made and we are NOT at all on the same page.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember getting to a decent population and then as time went along OW dropped to 12 players US prime time in Q3 2015 for a few weeks.  We had 1 server then, not 3.  6 months later we had over 2000 players playing the game.  This time people started screaming it was the end of the world a month back when we had 200 people on prime time US and 700 prime time Europe on EU server alone.  That's a far cry from the lows we have had.

Edited by Prater
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think this new RVR system we'll see atleast 80% pop return and we'll hold that pop for much longer.

Out of sheer sportsmanship and without any ill intent towards you, I will note that down as a benchmark of the expectations this community has towards this upcoming patch. Your word in Neptune's ear. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jean de la Rochelle said:

Out of sheer sportsmanship and without any ill intent towards you, I will note that down as a benchmark of the expectations this community has towards this upcoming patch. Your word in Neptune's ear. 

Haha, you're on mate ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Players come and go constantly in EA games because there is hardly enough content to hold the playerbase. Once enough content comes in, the game will hold more pop between patches. I think this new RVR system we'll see atleast 80% pop return and we'll hold that pop for much longer 

What content is this you are talking about that is missing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Quineloe said:

What content is this you are talking about that is missing?

Its still EA, there is content that's so far off we're not aware of yet.

but Unity 5 will bring new ships, ship customization, and overall pave the way for a huge content update spike, whatever the devs have in mind.

The biggest think I think will keep players on is RVR and clan content. Even though I'm an avid hater of current RVR, the idea of working as a nation/clan to achieve goals is the most timeless content NA can provide. I think these new changes is a step in a right direction, but only time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

If a clan tries to occupy a whole region to install an ousting tax regime it will be an invitation for every other clan on the map to conquer one or two ports in this regions to install a tax haven where every player can do his business without getting robbed by the taxman. And believe me this will be the best running harbour on the entire map.

Look at the way it stands now! strong nations do NOT fight eachother, they agree to excange a region for another. The same will happen with clans, they will not fight eachother. Strong organized clans, will take over regions and they will impose their will on the little people.

My opinion

Edited by AxIslander
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Its still EA, there is content that's so far off we're not aware of yet.

but Unity 5 will bring new ships, ship customization, and overall pave the way for a huge content update spike, whatever the devs have in mind.

The biggest think I think will keep players on is RVR and clan content. Even though I'm an avid hater of current RVR, the idea of working as a nation/clan to achieve goals is the most timeless content NA can provide. I think these new changes is a step in a right direction, but only time will tell.

That's odd, other EA games I've played before had a pretty clear content roadmap ahead. I'm not aware of any content that is scheduled here, I can't even think of anything to add to a PVP game when the game itself is lacking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AxIslander said:

Look at the way it stands now! strong nations do NOT fight eachother, they agree to excange a region for another. The same will happen with clans, they will not fight eachother. Strong organized clans, will take over regions and they will impose their will on the little people.

My opinion

Let's be honest here, the game couldn't even get the pirates to have actual infighting. Odds are pretty low it will happen for nationals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Quineloe said:

Let's be honest here, the game couldn't even get the pirates to have actual infighting. Odds are pretty low it will happen for nationals.

Not sure what you are talking about.  There has been plenty of infighting and even a pirate civil war.  But then Vicious quit, sorry broke up, and it ended.

 

4 minutes ago, Quineloe said:

I'm not aware of any content that is scheduled here, I can't even think of anything to add to a PVP game when the game itself is lacking.

No content that is scheduled?  Just because you don't know of any yourself doesn't mean nothing is coming, and there is plenty of stuff that has been publicly announced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Quineloe said:

That's odd, other EA games I've played before had a pretty clear content roadmap ahead. I'm not aware of any content that is scheduled here, I can't even think of anything to add to a PVP game when the game itself is lacking.

Well to be fair NA is different from a game like squad, or dayz where the general idea has been done before multiple times over and the layout can be planned from inception.

NA wasn't planned to be open world from the beginning. EVE and POTBS are the only games you can reasonably compare to NA, which doesn't give much feedback. Its trial and error to try to get things that work, but at some points different areas of the game will be complete at base. OW PVP is close, RVR is the next important step, after that the puzzle pieces of eco, grind, and everything else should fall in much easier.

After all that is fixed THEN the major content comes in

Edited by Slim Jimmerson
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Prater said:

Not sure what you are talking about.  There has been plenty of infighting and even a pirate civil war.  But then Vicious quit, sorry broke up, and it ended.

 

No content that is scheduled?  Just because you don't know of any yourself doesn't mean nothing is coming, and there is plenty of stuff that has been publicly announced.

Constant shouting at each other and childish insults in nation chat do not constitute for a proper civil war.

 

And yes, The roadmap  thread from July only lists UI improvements as significant milestones. This thread is about replacing one conquest system with another, that's not new content, that is altering existing content.  I'm not aware of any other content. Ships are not content in itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

That strong nations don't fight each other right now has its reason in the broken RvR mechanic. Even if you win a portbattle losses on ships cannot be replaced by the victory marks you get. You have to farm combat marks to subsidize your RvR pleasure. Second reason is that even the biggest nation struggle right now to get enough player to fill a PB fleet.

Still, i feel players/clans should not get power over the taxation, the rewards should be Paints and other shiny things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin

I'm concerned what a clan controlled tax rate will do to a new player who is using what little gold they have to set up a base of operations. There is a possibility that a steep increase in tax will essentially cripple their base of operations. For a new player this leaves their financial security in jeopardy as investment vs. return is dicey at the early stages. Particularly a problem if inflation becomes an issue and late game players have millions versus the new player with a Cutter and a dream. Spending coin to open up another port may be beyond their costs so their options would be: 

1. Go back to PvE missions to get more coin to open another base of operations elsewhere and hope the same thing doesn't happen (fool me once..)

2. Wait it out and hope for a flip (which means either not logging in or logging in just to check the status and logging out)

3. Try and join that large clan (if you can't beat them join them..) which just means that everyone of one nation is part of one or two mega clans and the whole purpose is nullified anyways

4. Quit

It's an interesting concept but I'm not sure from the perspective of a new player it is the best idea. A single tax rate for everyone regardless of income level doesn't work in real life and it can't work in game either. A 15% tax may be nothing to a Veteran Player with their piles of gold but to a new player that could be crippling and slow their growth considerably.

There have been many concerns in the pages prior to this regarding new player attraction and retention and I feel like there is still a bit too much focus on the later stage of player involvement - pandering to the veterans as it were. While vets are certainly going to need pandering to, it is the early stages of player involvement that need the most work at this point. 

Edited by Bjerg Bjergsson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AxIslander said:

I allso sugested earlier a dynamic Admirality Mission Content that constantly keeps at war the larger clans. So there will be no room for friendly exchanges.

 

I think RVR missions are a good way to implement this. Instead of freely picking the next port to attack, you have to fight on a front no matter who is on that front. No jumpinmg from one side of the map to the other. This will force neighboring countries to be at constant war

Edited by Slim Jimmerson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2017 at 7:17 AM, Peter Goldman said:

they are scared even more and won't risk.

The central problem here is that they have a choice -- they "won't risk" PvP because there are more rewarding paths that are also less risk.

People grind missions in safe spots because missions are the #1 most reliable source of XP and cash and they are also safer.

Ultimately this is why we must take away the player's choice in the matter. They must risk PvP if they want to advance.

I still have yet to talk to a veteran captain who admits they quit because they ran out of ships. Cost and durability has never been a real issue. The fear of loss is somewhat a matter of ego (which is perfectly legitimate in a small community) but mainly it's a matter of avoiding risk because the game rewards us for hiding.
 

In my opinion, the only type of missions should be these new "hostility missions" that put you outside enemy ports.

Edited by Slamz
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bjerg Bjergsson said:

 

I'm concerned what a clan controlled tax rate will do to a new player who is using what little gold they have to set up a base of operations. There is a possibility that a steep increase in tax will essentially cripple their base of operations. For a new player this leaves their financial security in jeopardy as investment vs. return is dicey at the early stages. Particularly a problem if inflation becomes an issue and late game players have millions versus the new player with a Cutter and a dream.

I don't think tax rate is going to be much of an issue. I'm willing to bet there's not going to be too much wiggle room on it. We'd be lucky to see 5%-15%. In one of the lines admin said the maintenance on the port will be affected by the tax rate. Not sure what that will mean. but I'm pretty sure these ports will turn into a big cash sink. If your nation has only one or two powerhouse RvR clans just remember that every dollar spent in their ports helps those guys get your nation more ports. I'm still unsure of how this will work. Originally they were talking about clans being in control of capitals, but it doesn't seem that way in these notes. Seems like you're going to have a set number of ports that are unconquerable and then everything else will start as a neutral port. Point is that it's not to much cash in taxes and you'll probably want to support your RvR squads as it gets pretty expensive for them to get your nation more ports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Duncan McFail said:

Point is that it's not to much cash in taxes and you'll probably want to support your RvR squads as it gets pretty expensive for them to get your nation more ports.

It's another attempt to make the game perpetual, so you can no longer grow to the extend of one-porting another unconquerable zone.

You fight an exponential uphill battle until you finally realize you are fighting a mechanic, not a player base.

Poof, empty server again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Slamz said:

Ultimately this is why we must take away the player's choice in the matter. They must risk PvP if they want to advance.

Yes, and you will end up with a game played by 75 players. Maybe some of the 'enlisted-by-force' will join you. Nevertheless the conception of players being dumb sheep that just need to be herded around by increasingly limiting their compound in certain ways shows a certain kind of philosophy towards game making. Same like training dogs, some will say you need to punish them. I'd say raise the rewards for going out of the compound (gold, xp, things to discover, places to visit, things to do; story content) and you will have happy sheep that roam the open world.

I still don't see the benefit of many centers of commerce that are being taxed. In my game play all I really need right now is the capital. Because outside of it I don't find cannons, repairs, upgrades, skill books, etc (given that I play for France, I am pretty much squashed into one corner of the Caribbean anyways). And they are scarce at the capital with the server population as is, try finding any upgrade on the open market ...

Now if you have many centers that may be of service to the players, but it will be an incredible money-losing-business for most clans, unless you have a steep rise in the players base (you may call them consumers, if clans become city owning enterprises). Trade mechanics will become an abysmal nightmare to adjust with so many levels of complexity.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quineloe said:

Constant shouting at each other and childish insults in nation chat do not constitute for a proper civil war.

 

You prove you don't know what you are talking about.  More than words were exchanged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Jean de la Rochelle said:

 Nevertheless the conception of players being dumb sheep that just need to be herded around by increasingly limiting their compound in certain ways shows a certain kind of philosophy towards game making.

Yeah -- one that works.

Almost every game herds players around in ways meant to highlight the main aspects of the game. Football has boundaries. You cannot take the ball with you to the bar and still claim to be playing the game. The game herds you onto the field where all of the other players must also be.

"Sandbox gaming" has always been a very tricky beast precisely because it does not herd the players and therefore gives them a lot of rope to hang themselves with. They claim the game is not fun and they quit (see Steam reviews for NA) because the game didn't herd them into fun activities.

In conclusion, I assume players are dumb sheep because in all my years of gaming I have come to the belief that this is what most of them are. Let them hide in a corner until they hate the game, declare it's boring and quit and that is what a lot of them will do.

But I also think that if you have a fun game and herd your players correctly then you can establish a base of people who enjoy that style of herding and more will come. This has worked well in game design since the first caveman kicked the first rock across the first line.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Slamz said:

In conclusion, I assume players are dumb sheep because in all my years of gaming I have come to the belief that this is what most of them are. Let them hide in a corner until they hate the game, declare it's boring and quit and that is what a lot of them will do.

But I also think that if you have a fun game and herd your players correctly then you can establish a base of people who enjoy that style of herding and more will come. This has worked well in game design since the first caveman kicked the first rock across the first line.

Herding them in a corner is only fun for some time.

On 7/5/2017 at 8:46 PM, Skully said:

That's only one option for such an alliance. You are forgetting the opposite option, find another ally to beat the Danes. :ph34r:

On 7/5/2017 at 10:29 PM, Slamz said:

In our specific case, the British Aussies should be fighting the Danish Chinese. Same time zone. Similar strength and numbers. They even share a border. AND they border with the Danes right at the spot where the Danes control the local White Oak supply. AND the Danes are allies with the Pirates who the Brits are fighting. So the Aussie Brits took up a non-aggression pact with the Danes. The one group they can fight. Right next door. With a white oak port.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's f'n bizarre.

On 7/15/2017 at 3:37 PM, Skully said:

Once we can force @Jeheil to become French

Don't say I didn't warn you, but then you do have certain assumptions. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

... and therefore gives them a lot of rope to hang themselves with.

Haha, probably, yes. There is however not only one narrative of what works and what doesn't.

19 minutes ago, Slamz said:

They claim the game is not fun and they quit (see Steam reviews for NA) because the game didn't herd them into fun activities.

You can push and you can pull, yank them or shoo them softly. True, the reality is that you'll probably need both and herding it'll be anyways. Agreed.

At the moment most people seem to complain about the punishment. I partly concur, for me there are not enough rewards (and not enough story content).  So instead of making this game even more hardcore by only catering for clan players (who at some moments give the impression that they would just as easily play any other multiplayer game, as long as it fulfills their need to be in a clan) I would assume the right course of action would be to ease on the yank and offer more of the low tone voice for the broader masses. Because the way I see it, if that new system gets implemented, you need more steady population on the servers.

But let's see, maybe this update fixes the flaws the developers seem to have spotted with the RvR (which are not entirely re-traceable anymore by an outsider). I honestly hope so. Let's see if the sheep spot the wolves lair that is being laid out for them or if they are not smart enough after all (really sorry for dragging out this allegory to unbearable lengths ;)).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...