The PvE server needs some attention...desperately!

[Jean Ribault]

For the people who cannot seem to comprehend that they are not the center of the universe, and that there are more playstyles than YOURS, and that there doesn't seem to be a law that only allows YOU to play YOUR style:

Liken it to the Christmas tree.  You put your own tree with four colors of Christmas balls hanging on it, blue, red, silver, gold.  I put up my own tree with only silver Christmas balls.  However, you hate me for it, and claim now that I only have two choices: either I abandon my own tree and just come help you with your tree by putting up just the red balls on it, or else I'm not allowed to have a tree at all.

That's exactly what you're saying, and it's senseless.  Go away from this thread, it has nothing to do with you or what you want for something else you don't even play, so you are off topic.  Why are you even trolling in a thread that first of all isn't even this about your hatred of pve, and secondly you have no interest in ever playing the discussed content.

[Jean Ribault]

7 hours ago, monk33y said:

...In asking for the ability to conquest (taking others things), does this not add an element of pvp?

...Having conquest on the pve server makes the server into pvp for dummies, does it not!

 

No.  And no.  Let's spell it for you: player versus player.

A player or group of players conquests an AI port.  The second player is missing.  Did I lose you yet?  That is pve: player versus environment.

A conquest mechanism in and of itself does not define a human player.

Many of the pve players have left the pvp server admittedly because of the second P.  So NO, it is not adding any element of pvp, they don't want the second P added back in.  That is a closed argument, it has nothing whatsoever to do with you or your opinion of those players, so stop derailing the thread.  However if you have any constructive input on how the OP's suggestion can work on the pve server they are welcome.  Do you?

Edited September 17, 2017 by Jean Ribault

[AngryPanCake]

3 hours ago, Quineloe said:

Devs aren't sitting here hitting F5 to collect feedback. They're fixing bugs that weren't fixed in the last builds.

What is it with this forum that has people create threads linking to their other threads where no one cared as well?

I also don't believe in the "PVE server is just training ground for PVP server".

There's genuine pure PVE players, who will never even consider a game where they fight other players.... SO??? what is your point? that there are genuine PvE players that do not want to play on the PvP server? isn't that the whole purpose of a PvE server???

If the PVE server were just that, you might as well just create a no-PVP newbie zone where all new players start and can play until they choose a nation and leave on the PVP server, and save yourself an entire server.

Again, thank you for your input regarding the PvE server. However, as it is clear that you are a dedicated PvP player, you definitely should use your energy to provide feedback and help fix the problems that are affecting the PvP server. I know you feel like you have to, but you really don't have to waste your time on stuff that really doesn't affect your server or game style.

This thread is to promote PvE game play on the PvE server, it has nothing to do with PvP gameplay or the PvP server.

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, however, if your goal is to derail somebody else thread just because your feel the other group of players that do not share your own game style, should not exist or their server taken away, then it is just sad. Obviously, there is no amount of reasoning that will change your mind or the mind of the people like you, who sadly seem to be quite numerous in this forum.

[Quineloe]

4 hours ago, Jean Ribault said:

For the people who cannot seem to comprehend that they are not the center of the universe, and that there are more playstyles than YOURS, and that there doesn't seem to be a law that only allows YOU to play YOUR style:

Liken it to the Christmas tree.  You put your own tree with four colors of Christmas balls hanging on it, blue, red, silver, gold.  I put up my own tree with only silver Christmas balls.  However, you hate me for it, and claim now that I only have two choices: either I abandon my own tree and just come help you with your tree by putting up just the red balls on it, or else I'm not allowed to have a tree at all.

That's exactly what you're saying, and it's senseless.  Go away from this thread, it has nothing to do with you or what you want for something else you don't even play, so you are off topic.  Why are you even trolling in a thread that first of all isn't even this about your hatred of pve, and secondly you have no interest in ever playing the discussed content.

Was this rant directed at me? Lol. You hardly understood what I wrote.

 

should not exist or their server taken away,

Not what I said.

For "PVE" players, you guys are remarkably aggressive towards other players.

Again, I am saying that not all PVE players "just need to train and toughen up" to become PVP players. I was actually taking *your* side, but your blind hostility towards every single PVP player out there made it more important for you to attack me than understand what I wrote.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Quineloe

[Jean Ribault]

Projectionism, Quineloe.  You should look it up.

Also I play on both pvp and pve servers, and have spent more time on pvp server than pve.  You just will never understand.  This thread was aimed at trying to promote the pve server and its game further, but sounds like you may want that to fail.  You say pve players are aggressive.  You keep beating the dog eventually he will turn on you.  But show me the posts where pve players say get rid of all pvp, and redesign your game for pve only, because pvp is stupid.  I missed that one.  Your next post now, to derail further?  Or do you maybe have something valuable on the OP, since you claim you are playing defense.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Jean Ribault

[Sir Texas Sir]

While I'm pretty much against the waste of resources with he PvE server right now but was thinking.  How would the Port Battles work?  Would you stay with 6 ships only?  Should it be 25 AI ships like what most real port battles have.  How does the port fall back to Neutral AI own other than not paying and how does every one get new ports if they all become taken by clans?  Just a lot of questions about how it would work to have an PvE RvR set up on your server.

Remember Devs said your prob not going to get any new content for just the PvE server until after release that isn't for the PvP servers.  So asking them to modify a system in place and take up there time to get it right is taking away from the core of the game.   We still need to get the core mechanics straighten out for the main servers before we start working on PvE content for any servers and most likely that content will come in the form of something for the PvP server first.

 

[Jean Ribault]

5 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

While I'm pretty much against the waste of resources with he PvE server right now but was thinking.  How would the Port Battles work?  Would you stay with 6 ships only?  Should it be 25 AI ships like what most real port battles have.  How does the port fall back to Neutral AI own other than not paying and how does every one get new ports if they all become taken by clans?  Just a lot of questions about how it would work to have an PvE RvR set up on your server.

...

 

 

Yeah, it's an idea that could use some discussion.  I like the pvp discussion about mixed fleets, I think that has a lot of merit and could also be what the AI presents against a group in the pve conquest arena.  The one thing that I also agree takes thought is that ultimate quantity.  Perhaps linked to the size of the port or region.  Some would require 25, some less, but there has to be a lower limit or painting would be too easy.  The largest clan size I've personally seen so far on pve server happens to be French, and they go out all the time together in groups of higher rate ships at least 6 or 8 strong.  If we had alliances back it might make this configuration easier to set up though, but alliances is another story.  What works for pvp server in alliances (or maybe doesn't) probably doesn't have the same result on the pve server.  Although the OP did try to tackle it.

My opinion is that it should be really hard to conquest, so the lower ship limit would have to be high, like 15 or so AI.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Jean Ribault

[monk33y]

On a server without conflict why would adding conflict benefit anybody???

Oh but that's right, my views are different to yours. So your attack me for that. 

The aggression from the pve players has shocked me. (mabey your more of a pvp player than you care to admit)

We are having a public discussion on the state of a server, the only trolls iv seen in this topic have been the narrow minded pve crowd. 

I'll leave you to your NON COMBAT PVE ENVIRONMENT. 

Enjoy it. 

 

 

[LeBoiteux]

1 hour ago, monk33y said:

On a server without conflict why would adding conflict benefit anybody???

Any game (single-player one, MMO...), any movie, any novel, any story is driven by conflict (to a greater or lesser extent). That's what maintains viewers/players' interest.

The only difference between PvE and PvP in terms of conflict is the origin of this conflit : players or AI. Judging the quality of that origin and preferring one over the other is a matter of taste.

Edited September 18, 2017 by LeBoiteux

[Asmoday]

Well I have read many opinions, I have seen many complaints and many confrontations derived from an interesting mix between stupidity and pride ... I will not go into details, I only think about the game and how we can all bring ideas to improve it. I am a player that bets more on PvE because it is the basis of learning and acquisition of knowledge to be able to test it in PvP against other players.

I believe that it is possible to find the balance between PvE and PvP. I'm going to propose an idea that can be implemented on a single server and both PvE and PvP players believe that they will find it feasible and developers, given the level of programming they require, should have no problems implementing it.
 

The idea is simple only have to generate an area of hostility in the port to be conquered, this area is increasing as time goes by which can be accelerated thanks to the number of battles that we engage with the opposite faction, when it reaches its maximum level (we speak of an area that covers many kilometers) the port can be conquered in a PvP battle, players who avoid that area will not have problems and will be able to follow their normal path, those that enter will be in PvP and may be attacked by other players , those who enter and leave that area of hostility will be marked for 15-20 min as players in PvP status and may be attacked by other players at that time outside the zone of hostility. Everything will return to normal when a time of 15 - 30 days after the conquest of this port or the defense of the same takes place, during the course of this time the faction that to conquered or defended a port can not conquer or defend another port until the established time passes previously (This forces the players of each nation to think well which port they want to conquer or protect).

I also consider that seasons of conquest can be applied. Each season can last between 8 o 12 months and in them will win the faction that more ports or consquistas has realized and will give a maximum of 15 days in which the players can change of faction without losing all his progress in the game.

These two simple ideas mentioned above can greatly improve the gaming experience and give possibilities to new players and factions that previously had no great relevance or importance in the game.

I leave the example in this simple image of the map of the game. The affected area (Havana and its environs, a few hours or days have passed) is dangerous and PvP is present, the area outside it is safe. A cordial greeting and thanks for the attention paid. Less complaints and more solutions.

(The established times can be modified ... They are not definitive).
 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Asmoday

[Archaos]

Although I can see why players on the Pve server would like more content, I dont see how port capture would work. What happens if one group decide to take over the whole server for one nation, how do you stop them without PvP. If you just have hostility generation and then a port battle against Ai then your holdings in any port would be at risk as you could do nothing to stop a port being captured. If you cannot afford to risk building and using the port whats the point in capturing it.

[Malachy]

Judging from the new reinforcement areas, it looks like they are preparing to eventually shut down pve and integrate them into the main servers.

[Jean Ribault]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 11:56 PM, Archaos said:

Although I can see why players on the Pve server would like more content, I dont see how port capture would work. What happens if one group decide to take over the whole server for one nation, how do you stop them without PvP. If you just have hostility generation and then a port battle against Ai then your holdings in any port would be at risk as you could do nothing to stop a port being captured. If you cannot afford to risk building and using the port whats the point in capturing it.

Looks like port capture could/would be limited in the same fashion as on pvp servers, which is to say maintenance costs.  I believe that should work.  Also, the OP suggested a reasonable way of alternating hostilities/alliances on the pve server that could be tailored to assist port capture mechanics.  The flipside is you are right about the inability to stop a port capture if it is all AI defense; but most of the pve server people that have spoken up prefer such a scenario; I do as well.  But remember any port can be RE-captured any number of times, so one capture is not a final say-so for any nation; same as pvp server.

I'm not sure in the end that I personally even want port capture on the pve server.  But many are asking for port battle availability.  This could also be established by allowing hostility generation, a port battle, and then resort to a no-territory-gain, just to deliver the experience.  Initial map spread of port ownership would always stay the same, and just tuned initially for a decent balance/expectations.  I'd be for that configuration, just to add the additional content for the server.

 

21 minutes ago, Malachy said:

Judging from the new reinforcement areas, it looks like they are preparing to eventually shut down pve and integrate them into the main servers.

You have no basis for such a statement.  There are opposite statements by the devs.  I won't look them up for you, you should go find them.

But please don't spread rumors.  And further, you are off topic in this thread.  Please start a separate thread if you wish to discuss abolishing pve server.

[Hodo]

The best way to have RvR on the PVE server is make it a basic points race for a town.

The side that gains the most hostility points in a set period of time gains control of the town.

The points can be gained by PVE missions, killing NPC ships in that region, OR by running war supplies into the town.

[Jean Ribault]

Just now, Hodo said:

The best way to have RvR on the PVE server is make it a basic points race for a town.

The side that gains the most hostility points in a set period of time gains control of the town.

The points can be gained by PVE missions, killing NPC ships in that region, OR by running war supplies into the town.

Yeah that could work.   With two additions: first that only neutral ports could be turned over to national, and second, that as hostilities decrease over time (through lack of those things you mentioned), then those originally-netural ports should recover back to their original neutral state.  Self-healing map, as it were.  However, some people still will want the pve experience in the larger scenario of port battle, without the element of the second P; I couldn't say just what percentage of people that is on the server, but there are definitely some.

[EdWatchmaker]

I'm at work so I have to be short. I really like some of these ideas. These kind of things can really help the Dev's. Thanks.

[Holm Hansen]

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

The best way to have RvR on the PVE server is make it a basic points race for a town.

The side that gains the most hostility points in a set period of time gains control of the town.

The points can be gained by PVE missions, killing NPC ships in that region, OR by running war supplies into the town.

maybe like this

But to conquer the harbor would slightly disturb the peaceful atmosphere on the PVE-server, because it would also lead indirect to a competition

I would suggest that a victorious clan in a portbattle (clan against AI ships) will be excempt from tax for a certain time (for example three weeks) in this port. Where it is possible for several clans in one port. The taxes on the PVE-server go anyway to no one, so that thereby also no one has disadvantages, if a clan is successfull. 

Maybe the number of harbors in which a clan can be exempt from taxes should be limited.

ok, thats not RvR, but i think all RvR wil be indirect a PVP mechanic

[Malachy]

7 hours ago, Jean Ribault said:

Looks like port capture could/would be limited in the same fashion as on pvp servers, which is to say maintenance costs.  I believe that should work.  Also, the OP suggested a reasonable way of alternating hostilities/alliances on the pve server that could be tailored to assist port capture mechanics.  The flipside is you are right about the inability to stop a port capture if it is all AI defense; but most of the pve server people that have spoken up prefer such a scenario; I do as well.  But remember any port can be RE-captured any number of times, so one capture is not a final say-so for any nation; same as pvp server.

I'm not sure in the end that I personally even want port capture on the pve server.  But many are asking for port battle availability.  This could also be established by allowing hostility generation, a port battle, and then resort to a no-territory-gain, just to deliver the experience.  Initial map spread of port ownership would always stay the same, and just tuned initially for a decent balance/expectations.  I'd be for that configuration, just to add the additional content for the server.

 

You have no basis for such a statement.  There are opposite statements by the devs.  I won't look them up for you, you should go find them.

But please don't spread rumors.  And further, you are off topic in this thread.  Please start a separate thread if you wish to discuss abolishing pve server.

The best way to fix that server is to shut it down. No one plays there to speak of and it's riddled with problems because ultimately this is a pvp game. The developers if you can call them that, I use the term very loosely in this case, stated that the pve server would be left up until it was no longer profitable. They have made several changes to the pvp servers to allow safe pve areas. In my book, it looks like the pve servers have a limited lifetime. Why fix something that very few people use? 

[Jean Ribault]

16 hours ago, Holm Hansen said:

maybe like this

But to conquer the harbor would slightly disturb the peaceful atmosphere on the PVE-server, because it would also lead indirect to a competition

I would suggest that a victorious clan in a portbattle (clan against AI ships) will be excempt from tax for a certain time (for example three weeks) in this port. Where it is possible for several clans in one port. The taxes on the PVE-server go anyway to no one, so that thereby also no one has disadvantages, if a clan is successfull. 

Maybe the number of harbors in which a clan can be exempt from taxes should be limited.

ok, thats not RvR, but i think all RvR wil be indirect a PVP mechanic

Tax credit.  Great idea, hadn't ever thought of it, and would make a temporary trade boost in the region for the receiving clans.  Not an end game but good content to make gameplay more enjoyable.

[Holm Hansen]

2 hours ago, Jean Ribault said:

Tax credit.  Great idea, hadn't ever thought of it, and would make a temporary trade boost in the region for the receiving clans.  Not an end game but good content to make gameplay more enjoyable.

And its at least an incentive for port battles or other actions to influence a port.

This, or other benefits, it could be anything that can enjoy several clans in one harbor at the same time.

All that what only one clan in the same harbor and time can accomplish (port-capture i.e.), will be a PVP-thing in my opinion. Because it block then other clans or players in their interests.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Holm Hansen

[Sersanara]

Here are my suggestions for changes in PVE:

 

Warships should be able to enter ports of other factions like smuggler, same as traders.

Possibility to change from your personal ship to another one you carry in your own fleet while sailing in the sea, not only in port or battle.

Possibility to see the hold/warehouses of the ships that you carry in your own fleet while sailing in the sea, not only in port or battle.

NPC captains hired should be able to take ships automatically from one port to another, for a price and a travel time. With a chance of losing or damage it in route.

Implement a price list search for a specific port in the trader tool.

Reduce the cost of Control Fleet perks, or have the possibility to increase perk points available.

Warning message for when a contract or sale of ship is expired without completing.

Turn the wind in both directions in the OW. First clockwise and then the other way around.

Among the NPCs in the OW there are no trader comvoys, with or without escort, only solitary traders. Change this.

Replace the map as it was before the wipe. Cities of different nationalities all over the map. Not all neutral cities. Or at least activate the admiralty in the neutral cities.

Allow players to attack all types of ships implemented in the game, even if they are only fir/oak. NPCs of all types of ships. You could put the ships more rare with a smaller probability to appear or accompanied by large fleets.

Activate the friendly fire.

Le Gros Ventre should have a hold of at least 2200/2400. Big enough to pick it up instead of Trader Brig as this can get into shallow waters.

In the 3rd Rate they should align the doors of their guns with the paint bands, like the Agamemnon, by God!

The Wasa would not have as much firepower, it should be even smaller than that of the Agamemnon.

 

Best regards.