Storm Warnings , FRF Clan [PvE Server]

[Tom Souville]

 

Hello to the whole community and to the developpers team of Naval action. I m posting this message on behalf on the entire FRF Clan. Our Clan is playing on the PVE server. ( we have around 20 active players and sadly a total of 102 players most of them don't log in any longer....

 

The process who lead to that post is simple, we started a discussion on our own forum, asking players what they thought about the game, what was wrong , what was great and what we thought was needed to improve it. Our only concern is PVE and not to start a fruitless discussion between the two community who are  playing  the SAME game.

 

I did the translation, hoping my english is not too rusty because most of our clan members dont speak english ( we are a francophone community ) its short , here it is.

 

Naval action is a gorgeous game, but in our opinion at the moment developers are clearly shooting themselves in the foot. They are lacking of respect for the players on the PVE server who paid for the game as much as the PVP players. It sounds like they consider PVE players like “cash cows” who can't access the whole content of the game. For example : port battles , the freshly new modified Epic events or even more the fact that in missions or fleet combat orders on PVE side we never cross Indéfatigable Endymion or Niagara class vessel but allways the same IA bots in sailing the same ships. PVE players should be considered as much valuable as any others by the developers. People who play on the PVE server made that choice, and nothing can force them to move on a PVP server. By doing so, if its your wish as it sounds we dont deserve to have the same content as on the pvp side ( the new gros ventre refit for example and the swivels guns for example ) you will just loose dedicated players.

Naval action has exceptional graphics. we re playing on the PVE server where we can do combat missions, fleet missions and hostility missions and where we can also attack traders and fleets in open world. We like the fact that we can play in team, and that team play is so interesting.

This game has a huge potential but there is room for improvement especially on a PVE point of view. For example new types of missions (escort missions or attack missions of trader’s ships of others nations which would transport "rare" good specific to their nation Almeria saltpaper, Cartagena tar etc...)

Unlocking port battle on the PVE server and allowing clans to organize business and levy taxes from those ports during a limited time (15 days for example for the nation who manage the port). All those things don’t sound impossible to do.... and it will bring more people to your game.

Finally there is also the idea to have ONE unique server, with the opportunity to do PVP using the same mechanic as the smuggler tag. People or clan who want to PVP would be able to and people who don’t want, won’t.

 

Have a nice day All

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Tom Souville

[Demsity]

I would suggest trying to play on the PVP servers as they currently are.

Most of the things that you want for the PVE server (Port battles, place to do missions, hunting OW AI ships, Choosing to do PVP) is very possible as it is now.
 

• Port battles: Port battles work.
• Place to do missions: With the new safe zones you are very safe to do PVE and not to worry about other players at all.
• Hunting OW AI ships: Although you have to be a bit careful so you dont go outside the zone, it is very possible to hunt OW ships inside the safe zone (I do it often)
• Choosing to do PVP: When you are ready for some PVP, leave the safe zone

I´m not trying to convert you over to the PVP servers here, I´m just pointing out that many of the features you want on the PVE server can be done on the PVP servers without PVP.

 

And unfortunately, since the PVE server has such low population (compared to PVP servers) it will become overlooked from time to time.

[Rychu Karas]

TLTR version.

Pick PVE server and blame a game for lack of pvp content.

I would like to remind that this game is under development and its lack of EVERYTHING at this moment.

[randommexi]

this fellow makes some great points.  however, I myself, am a pve expert.  that's all I do.  I rarely go pvping and when I do it is cause a friend is in trouble and needs help.

I play on a pvp server.  I trade, and do missions.  that is it.  I have a group of people I play with and mostly do the same thing.  once in awhile I go to a port battle.

I have limited or no access to pvp marks but i'm sure they will start going on sale when people have their fill.  at which point i'm sure i'll be able to buy them.

 

I agree with Demsity.  probably better off on a pvp server if you are looking for that additional content.

[Fargo]

1 hour ago, Tom Souville said:

Naval action is a gorgeous game, but in our opinion at the moment developers are clearly shooting themselves in the foot. They are lacking of respect for the players on the PVE server who paid for the game as much as the PVP players.

Well, you always have to care what you pay for. Read through the steam description and you wont find a single word about PvE. It is very clear that this game focusses on player interaction. PvE is a feature, not ment to give you a PvE only experience. Sure it would be nice to have better and more challenging PvE content, but its not necessary for a functional OW, and it might be lots of work to develop required AI for example. 

PvE players often dont understand that OW is supposed to be a dynamic system, from economy to RvR. Why not give PvP focussed players the opportunity to do PvP somewhere somehow?! Because its not working like this. 

Im not saying i support latest changes mostly contradicting an dynamic OW aswell, but in general you cant argue that way. PvE is a feature, PvP means playing the game as intended. PvE only isnt working for an economy relying on ships sinking. Its not working for the PvE player that is saturated of everything at some point. That youre expectations are low and you simple enjoy sailing large ships is fine, but the average player is going to expect more.

[Tom Souville]

I dont think we said anywhere that we got a problem with pvp players or the way the game is working on pvp side....

i think we mostly said that we dont understand why, what is on the pvp side is not on the pve one as long as it s not involving "to force" player to play against others players,  and we also propose content like new kind of missions that could probably bring some fun and diversity on the pvp server too.

Maybe we have low expectations if you say so... , but then again why dont satisfy ours low expectation with giving us the opportunity to sail on a new "gros ventre" with new guns  or to access port battle with the hostility mission system  if some are interested in. I mean the work is allready done... so where is the problem ?

and again to make it clear, it s not MY point of view , but the point of view of around 20 active players because yes that cannot be deny the pve server is at its max 190 players yet it s 190 players who paid for the game and who deserved to be listened

[Hodo]

I dont see why they cant have PBs vs the AI, like we have when we attack a neutral port.

Or have conversions from Combat marks to PVP marks for these PVP only items.

[Jean Ribault]

4 hours ago, Hodo said:

I dont see why they cant have PBs vs the AI, like we have when we attack a neutral port.

Or have conversions from Combat marks to PVP marks for these PVP only items.

 

I agree, at least as a temporary measure conversions are necessary on the PVE server just to access certain things.  Seems like it would not be a hard thing to add to the Admiralty store until other unique server things are addressed.  There's already an exchange, add an item to the menu there.  And if it's not wanted on a pvp server, they can simply enable/disable the feature for each server, doesn't seem too hard.

Tom Souville, I see your clan members go out all the time from port to work together in groups.  There's no reason why large groups such as yourselves shouldn't have a voice here.  Unfortunately we never know if it's heard because the devs seem to ignore most posts like this.  Not even a headnod it's been read, which is a shame.  I'm sorry to hear that 80% of your clan doesn't participate anymore.

[Jean Ribault]

8 hours ago, Demsity said:

...And unfortunately, since the PVE server has such low population (compared to PVP servers) it will become overlooked from time to time.

 

I don't disagree that PVE server has lowER population, but the numbers I see are actually competitive with PVP Global, especially considering it doesn't take much population on the PVE server for it to succeed.  What I might take exception to though is the term you used "overlooked".  It's pretty much "ignored", and has been for quite some time in development.  Some simple things that take no time at all have been suggested, but nothing.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Jean Ribault

[Demsity]

1 hour ago, Jean Ribault said:

 

I don't disagree that PVE server has lowER population, but the numbers I see are actually competitive with PVP Global, especially considering it doesn't take much population on the PVE server for it to succeed.  What I might take exception to though is the term you used "overlooked".  It's pretty much "ignored", and has been for quite some time in development.  Some simple things that take no time at all have been suggested, but nothing.

PVP ServerS

 

But I agree, some more PVE content (for both PVE and PVP servers) is needed.

[Landsman]

12 hours ago, Tom Souville said:

 

They probably just forgot about the actual PvE server since the other servers are PvE too... 

[Genma Saotome]

PvE player here.

I havn't sailed very much since the DEV's kicked national regions to the curb.  As a history buff I see the changes over the last couple of months as moving in a completely wrong direction WRT my own interests.

 

Give the kiddies Legends and put some reality back into NA.

[IndianaGeoff]

5 hours ago, Genma Saotome said:

PvE player here.

I havn't sailed very much since the DEV's kicked national regions to the curb.  As a history buff I see the changes over the last couple of months as moving in a completely wrong direction WRT my own interests.

 

Give the kiddies Legends and put some reality back into NA.

I think the Clan system is working better than I thought it would.  The clans are banding together to help out and port battles see a mix of clans rather than the uniform mess of single clan, single ships we saw in the recent past.  There are reasons to fight and benefits for winning other than turning the map your color.

I don't see the Nation's being diminished, at least for the US on Global.

[Teutonic]

A question for PvE.

If nations/clans could take ports you could potentially make it so other players cannot use those said ports. Currently on the pve server, every player can use any neutral port, if his port was taken by a different nation, they would be unabke to use that port. Doesn't that go against the freedom of the players choice?

It would create a problem where a nation wants that port, but can't have it because someone else got their first and now they are unable to do something to take it back since all forms of PvP are disabled. I suppose diplomacy could work to an extent.

 

I am just imagining a situation where I take a very "good" port (like bridgetown) that players from other nations are using, therefore they are unable to access their buildings or crafting.

[IndianaGeoff]

Does not work due to Alts.

[Jean Ribault]

3 hours ago, Teutonic said:

A question for PvE.

If nations/clans could take ports you could potentially make it so other players cannot use those said ports. Currently on the pve server, every player can use any neutral port, if his port was taken by a different nation, they would be unabke to use that port. Doesn't that go against the freedom of the players choice?

It would create a problem where a nation wants that port, but can't have it because someone else got their first and now they are unable to do something to take it back since all forms of PvP are disabled. I suppose diplomacy could work to an extent.

 

I am just imagining a situation where I take a very "good" port (like bridgetown) that players from other nations are using, therefore they are unable to access their buildings or crafting.

Personally what makes sense to me is to allow the port battle experience on the PVE server, against AI, and without ownership change.  In lieu of port ownership change the results would simply yield rewards commensurate with the port/battle size.  To an extent similar to how you could choose a combat mission or an epic battle, and you get a different experience even though both yield rewards.  Along with this, more ports should be national ports on the server, not the meager spread of national ports that are there now.

 

3 hours ago, IndianaGeoff said:

Does not work due to Alts.

IG, not sure who or what you are replying to, or what this means.    Can you please explain?

[monk33y]

4 hours ago, Teutonic said:

A question for PvE.

If nations/clans could take ports you could potentially make it so other players cannot use those said ports. Currently on the pve server, every player can use any neutral port, if his port was taken by a different nation, they would be unabke to use that port. Doesn't that go against the freedom of the players choice?

It would create a problem where a nation wants that port, but can't have it because someone else got their first and now they are unable to do something to take it back since all forms of PvP are disabled. I suppose diplomacy could work to an extent.

 

I am just imagining a situation where I take a very "good" port (like bridgetown) that players from other nations are using, therefore they are unable to access their buildings or crafting.

The only way I can see it working would be to allow player v AI port battles but the port stays open to all. But you have to ask "what's the point of having the pb then" you might as well just leave it as it is....!

With player v AI port battles the Ai should be given 25 ships of the best class set up to make it a fight...

Edited November 8, 2017 by monk33y

[Genma Saotome]

I've argued elsewhere the DEV's should change PvP Port Battles from allowing the invader to permanently occupy a port to one where all they get is maybe a day or two and the right to loot a portion of the all the goods there.  Now in the context of PvE, that would work very, very well (and is another reason why National Ports could still make good sense).

[Hethwill]

3 hours ago, Genma Saotome said:

I've argued elsewhere the DEV's should change PvP Port Battles from allowing the invader to permanently occupy a port to one where all they get is maybe a day or two and the right to loot a portion of the all the goods there.  Now in the context of PvE, that would work very, very well (and is another reason why National Ports could still make good sense).

In a PvE Server perspective this sounds interesting.

I can imagine the "reenactement" of the several sacking of Cartagena for example being done this way.

[Genma Saotome]

Consider that carrying an Army from Europe to some far away island is going to be an expensive proposition so you're not going to do it very often and when you do it's going to be for something rather special.  All of the other times it's a basic raid: get in, burn some ships, cut out some others, ransack the warehouses and burn the rest before heading out to sea.

IMO a complete ransack would be dispiriting event to whomever was in port, ship or building, so if applied to NA it would be smart to limit the damage in some way to a reasonable but not painful amount.  The port remains part of its nation, some material damage occurs, and that is all.  No country sweeps all before it kind of thing that was so common on PvP. 

And the best part of it is the whole thing could be done in PvE as well, albeit with AI on one side or the other..

Edited November 14, 2017 by Genma Saotome