Reinforcement Zones PVP1/2

[Archaos]

27 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

I want to know for EU. If it truly is a population issue and not a game design issue like you say, then EU should have points of interest on the OW that are fought over consistently by the nations, as it would be foolishly unpractical for any clan to assemble a fleet to look in the vast open ocean to look for an enemy fleets.

If there isnt any, or its completely facilitated by Port battles, then I'd say we're not using the OW to its fullest.

EU is not much better population wise. We will never be using the OW to its fullest without bigger population. A lot of the fun referred to historically happened when the server population was over 1500 at prime time.

[Slim McSauce]

20 minutes ago, Archaos said:

EU is not much better population wise. We will never be using the OW to its fullest without bigger population. A lot of the fun referred to historically happened when the server population was over 1500 at prime time.

Then wouldn't you agree that both EU and global alike would benefit to some OW objectives to facilitate and replace the PVP capital blockading using to provide?

Just simple PVP focused OW missions so PVP on the servers can be self sustainable, without requiring full pop to have happen purely natural.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Archaos]

10 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Then wouldn't you agree that both EU and global alike would benefit to some OW objectives to facilitate and replace the PVP capital blockading using to provide?

Just simple PVP focused OW missions so PVP on the servers can be self sustainable, without requiring full pop to have happen purely natural.

Totally agree, somewhere for PvP players to find action as well as encouraging more people to head out of safe areas even for PvE is what is needed.

[Hethwill]

@Slim Jimmerson

If they want to rove in such a strong squadron...

They go fight the strongest nation in PvP. Not the weakest.

 

[Slim McSauce]

7 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

@Slim Jimmerson

If they want to rove in such a strong squadron...

They go fight the strongest nation in PvP. Not the weakest.

There are strong players in every nation, and strong players can always be substituted with raw numbers. 

But even if there are a fleet of 10 strong pirates, and 10 strong Brits online at the same time. Without some OW objective outside the safezones, they won't find each other unless they mutually agree to meet up somewhere which no one wants to do, and not because PVPers are lazy and want EZ pvp. We want accessible PVP.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Hethwill]

Let's be honest, shall we ?

You want a real fight everytime, you don't go to KPR.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Hethwill said:

Let's be honest, shall we ?

You want a real fight everytime, you don't go to KPR.

I've never been to KPR. Real fights between nations are all I want, all this freeport solo hunting BS is tiring. My favorite period of the game was when US was getting shmacked by fleets of Pirates, and we we're backs against the wall fighting it out for every last inch of breathing room we could get on our coast. It was brutal, stressful, and arguably unfair. 
But it was extremely satisfying knowing that every battle we won was contributing to the war, and not just fought for the sake of having PVP/getting marks. 

[Archaos]

11 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

I've never been to KPR. Real fights between nations are all I want, all this freeport solo hunting BS is tiring. My favorite period of the game was when US was getting shmacked by fleets of Pirates, and we we're backs against the wall fighting it out for every last inch of breathing room we could get on our coast. It was brutal, stressful, and arguably unfair. 
But it was extremely satisfying knowing that every battle we won was contributing to the war, and not just fought for the sake of having PVP/getting marks. 

You hit the nail on the head there, PvP has to mean something, not just a means to get marks, but its the same with trading it has to mean something, if I lose a trader then it should have some effect on my clan or nation just like winning or losing in PvP should have an effect on a war. But they all need to be interlinked in some way so that a successful nation/clan is one that fosters different aspects of gameplay and they are interdependent.

[Pagan Pete]

9 hours ago, Archaos said:

The problem is that if they remove safe zones then the new players will constantly get ganked and it does not matter if they have insurance or not or if you replace their ships for free, eventually they get disheartened by being defeated so many times that they give up. You have to make it a risk vs reward equation so people can decide if it is worth the risk.

I trade a lot in dangerous waters and I seldom even carry guns on my traders, if I get caught I know I will lose at least 1 trader, but I also know the chances of getting caught are low, so the risk vs reward makes it worth it as I know I will get away with it most times and when I do get caught my profits from previous runs more than makes up for it. If I knew I would get caught most times then I would stop trading. The same risk vs reward has got to apply to PvE and PvP in the game.

The problem is, WITH safe zones as that stand along the US coast, the CAN NOT be hit. It's ludicrous. 
Its a lose-lose senario. Eiteh the traders are safe and realist piracy is screwed, or the bankers win and the traders are screwed.

Which, I ask you, is worse for the game numerically? Did the safe zones increase the number of users logged in? Or did the downward trend continue?

If it didn't stop the loss of players, then ships being stolen is not the problem. Eh?

[Iroquois Confederacy]

So, I'm actually not 100% against protection zones, however, I do believe that they are currently too expansive.  In my mind, a protection zone should be just enough to make oak ships unmolested.  As such, there should only be enough zone to cover two ports for each faction.

I did do up a map for an unrelated idea, but it did include my views on protected zones.  I'll relink it here, just ignire the conquest timers - red dots are (intuitively) protected zones.

[Archaos]

1 hour ago, Pagan Pete said:

The problem is, WITH safe zones as that stand along the US coast, the CAN NOT be hit. It's ludicrous. 
Its a lose-lose senario. Eiteh the traders are safe and realist piracy is screwed, or the bankers win and the traders are screwed.

Which, I ask you, is worse for the game numerically? Did the safe zones increase the number of users logged in? Or did the downward trend continue?

If it didn't stop the loss of players, then ships being stolen is not the problem. Eh?

Trading is not the issue as far as I can see, I'm not sure what its like along the US coast but as far as I know there is not much profit to be made trading between ports within the British safe zones around KPR, so the traders have to leave the safe zone to make profit, and this is how it should be. So in terms of piracy all you have to do is work out where they will be departing the safe zone and where they are headed to and intercept them. As I mentioned I have been intercepted by the same pirate player or his alt 4 times in a couple of weeks while doing trade runs and I have made adjustments to my runs to avoid him, which works for a couple of days till he finds me again. I have seen that he catches other traders as well, and this is on Global where the population is very low.

People seem to want it laid out on a plate for them, so they can log in and sail from port to do a bit of piracy and within 2 minutes of sailing from port they want to see traders for them to attack. In reality pirates and traders should be a cat and mouse game, sometimes you will go out and never catch a trader. Put it this way if as a trader I got intercepted every time I did a run I would soon pack up trading. But as I say trading is not the issue, at least not round KPR. As for the US coast or anywhere else, if it is possible to make good profit trading purely between ports without ever leaving the safe zone then that needs adjusting.

I do not believe the safe zones have increased the numbers of users logged in and the downward trend may still have continued, but I do think it slowed down the rate of losing players because players can level up and grind slots and drops from easy PvE battles in the safe zone. Put it this way it is what has kept me playing, because most members of the clan I am in moved back to EU server so I am usually alone online and thus do not partake in much group action or RvR.

The issues with safe zones, as far as I can see is that PvE battles can be done their with no risk, generating more profit than can be made from trading. This issue is what needs rectifying to encourage people doing missions and grinding to leave the safe zone. 

[Christendom]

Safe zones are necessary.  To use @admin's own words....happy sheep = happy wolves.  Noobs need a place to grind and level up.  While I'll agree that the sizes of the zones and the fact that some nations have 2 zones (sometimes at different parts of the map) is a bit stupid, the real issue here is not the zones themselves, it's the fact that players don't really need to leave them.  The game needs to develop a reason for folks to leave....PVP marks ain't doing it and the fact that AI fleets drop the good skill books now is a decent approach, but it was implemented after most players have the majority of what they need.  In some regions player can harvest all the resources they need, even some of the premium woods, in their zones and craft ships without ever needed to leave at all.  This needs to change.  Players should only be able to craft with the basics in their zones, if they want the teak, live oak, white oak or even mahog, they need to cart it from other areas.  Missions above a certain rank also need to not spawn in the safe zones.  

I don't really get the drama of people sitting outside of capitals looking for players to gank.  This is a byproduct of servers that aren't full and PVP marks.  When you have a map as big as our current one and only 600 players (on a good day) to fill it, hunting is going to be scarce.  A hungry wolf isn't going to just randomly hunt in the woods, he's going to go where he knows he can find a sure thing.  The PVP mark situation only increases the likely that any sort of PVP is going to be a gank.  It's a lazy solution intended to get people out on the open water.  I understand it's intent, but like I said...it's just lazy and ruins the game.  There are other ways to achieve the same goal.  

Unfortunately we have a small population of people that enjoy playing this game and because of various reasons, they're spread out over 3 servers and now we have an entirely new game introduced by the developer that directly competes with NA and will draw even more players away from the OW.  It is unfortunately a losing battle.

Most of the issues that make up the daily whine on these forums are instantly solved by more people.  

[George Washington]

25 minutes ago, Christendom said:

it's the fact that players don't really need to leave them. 

@admin here is your answer, even events suck. So, like I said it many times rewards rule them all. Keep ignoring them.  Players have no reason to go out there and play, especially pvp. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by George Washington

[Guest]

21 hours ago, rediii said:

ok thanks for clarification.

But thats a pretty big encouragement or not?

I guess we cant have that in NA, imagine the shitstorm, but we need some reason to leave the safezone

We could've, but once you give easy access to end-game ships - even if you tell people again and again that it's only due to early access leniency - people get pissy about having their toys taken away (and, as has been the case, then complain about the lack of ships since all the other ship rates are useless to them).

In EVE you don't hear solo players demanding that they should get to pilot Dreadnoughts, Carriers and Titans or that their game experience is in any way diminished by being unable to do so.

[Milkman van Swallows]

6 hours ago, Christendom said:

Noobs need a place to grind and level up.

True, but lets cut the crap, a max level player doesnt need nor should he get any protection. He has had enough time to learn what is going on.
Besides, residing in that hello kittying zone all the time will get them nowhere, the second they leave the zone they have no clue what to do because they have never been outside. Its like a wild animal grown up in captivity suddenly being released into the wild, it will hello kittying die. Protect players only up to a certain rank, enourage them to leave the zones and optionally shrink the zones. I see everyone here making things more complicated than they are, drawing up 20 million ideas that will take the devs another 20 million years to develop and bring to the game whilst the solution is so simple.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Lord Bomgordel

[Hethwill]

While I see where Pete's main concern is - entire stretch of Carolinas and Georgia under Protection, blocking any attempt at pyracy true form - Archaos also points out the sad truth of the moment.

Trade is a shadow of what it was a while ago. With trade being lower profit compared to even attacking a OW npc and with fairly good ships being "summoned" by use of marks what else is there ? Only purpose built ships, which woods can all be found in every Zone or ships of the line special woods, which make up for a tiny tiny part of the trade shipping.

 

[DrZoidberg]

21 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Funny, the testing of missions to be chosen to be on enemy regions ( some time before ) was opposed a lot. Was probably the most interesting way of making players move out from capitals regions

Personally I'd keep the Safe Zones for now, seems like a interesting way to safekeep naval cadets, but remove reinforcements. As a balancer the National AI on those areas becomes aggressive. So in Swedish zone, swedish AI is agressive is enemy shipping passes in tag range and starts a chase.

The funny is that this game staff make statments without any vote poll from the start. Maybe if u make votes abut zones, easier movement etc... we get a far better (at least popular) game. Not any votes, so people can say, this game has a dev team dont care about players opinions. Maybe if u made ur changes about players opinion u dont have so many flame on steam reviews...

[Hethwill]

Captain Zoidberg, whatever we say you surely have it the wrong way  GL do care and has their tools. Some times perception is not the truth as data tells different stories.

Wild example - 1000 players - 500 are afk'ing in port. How many are playing ? For you it is 1000. The data says 500. Your perception is wrong.

I know I make this mistake all the time :\

[DrZoidberg]

6 hours ago, Christendom said:

Safe zones are necessary.  To use @admin's own words....happy sheep = happy wolves.  Noobs need a place to grind and level up.  While I'll agree that the sizes of the zones and the fact that some nations have 2 zones (sometimes at different parts of the map) is a bit stupid, the real issue here is not the zones themselves, it's the fact that players don't really need to leave them.  The game needs to develop a reason for folks to leave....PVP marks ain't doing it and the fact that AI fleets drop the good skill books now is a decent approach, but it was implemented after most players have the majority of what they need.  In some regions player can harvest all the resources they need, even some of the premium woods, in their zones and craft ships without ever needed to leave at all.  This needs to change.  Players should only be able to craft with the basics in their zones, if they want the teak, live oak, white oak or even mahog, they need to cart it from other areas.  Missions above a certain rank also need to not spawn in the safe zones.  

I don't really get the drama of people sitting outside of capitals looking for players to gank.  This is a byproduct of servers that aren't full and PVP marks.  When you have a map as big as our current one and only 600 players (on a good day) to fill it, hunting is going to be scarce.  A hungry wolf isn't going to just randomly hunt in the woods, he's going to go where he knows he can find a sure thing.  The PVP mark situation only increases the likely that any sort of PVP is going to be a gank.  It's a lazy solution intended to get people out on the open water.  I understand it's intent, but like I said...it's just lazy and ruins the game.  There are other ways to achieve the same goal.  

Unfortunately we have a small population of people that enjoy playing this game and because of various reasons, they're spread out over 3 servers and now we have an entirely new game introduced by the developer that directly competes with NA and will draw even more players away from the OW.  It is unfortunately a losing battle.

Most of the issues that make up the daily whine on these forums are instantly solved by more people.  

Maybe u need reinforcement zone, but i dont. In the last 2 month i only make bussinnes, because i dont like to sail around hours for ganking or to be ganked. No real enjoyable group PVP, just for the best guilds, but they will run out the opportunities aswell. We dont know the real reasons, why the things goes, like that, but if u want to know the truth, i think the fast player base recycle and the low hardware possibilities the keywords, why developement going, like this.

Edited November 25, 2017 by DrZoidberg

[DrZoidberg]

20 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Captain Zoidberg, whatever we say you surely have it the wrong way  GL do care and has their tools. Some times perception is not the truth as data tells different stories.

Wild example - 1000 players - 500 are afk'ing in port. How many are playing ? For you it is 1000. The data says 500. Your perception is wrong.

I know I make this mistake all the time :\

Jeah, in the last 2 month i only make bussiness. But i fond of PVP. I remember the game before the last wipe. I go out as a Dutch player, and i got 1 team PVP after 1. Then u made a wipe, u made shitload changes what killed PVP and after that make  steatments like that: becuase there are not much PVP on the server, the server need more and more PVE :). Laughable. After wipe we got our first PB-s, and the serever always crushed? Why? i bet u change the hardware for a cheaper one (borrow, buy, all the same). U know whats ur aim, and i think i understand u, but the problem is that this game should be  a best seller. Everey game on the steam has succes has developers take care of players opinions. i just lack of that in this game. Just show me how many vote polls was about crucial changes? Btw for month u just dont answer player questions, suggestions. nowdays u fake that (i think), because u need better reviews to get some more players.

Edited November 25, 2017 by DrZoidberg

[Hethwill]

You discussing Reinforcement Zones or the whole game ? Not following your rant Captain.

[Pagan Pete]

12 hours ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

So, I'm actually not 100% against protection zones, however, I do believe that they are currently too expansive.  In my mind, a protection zone should be just enough to make oak ships unmolested.  As such, there should only be enough zone to cover two ports for each faction.

I did do up a map for an unrelated idea, but it did include my views on protected zones.  I'll relink it here, just ignire the conquest timers - red dots are (intuitively) protected zones.

I think this man here has hit on the perfect solution!
Just enough space for noobs to grind in safety, and for Historical Brand(™) Pyracy to flourish. 

Looks like a Win-win to me!
+3

[Cmdr RideZ]

Reinforced zones are ok for all ranks.  Maybe the size is too big.

There are multiple reasons why there is no PvP or it is hard to find.  If multiple other reasons are fixed, we don't have to sail to PvE areas.  After that Reinforced zones don't really feel that bad.

The question is can devs actually make it happen that players sail out from these zones.

[Guest]

@admin I would suggest having some kind of tutorial missions which give really low amount of xp and gold for higher ranked players, and can only spawn inside safezones, and have varieties on difficulity of the missions making it a high risk high reward game since it is actually a pvp server. Many big mmos have some kind of way to balance it for example wow have start zones up to lvl 20 where you are not available to get attacked, but if you want to continue at a higher pace you would have to do more things that could be risky.

[Pagan Pete]

The moral of the story is:

• If you DON'T want your ship stolen, there is the PVE server.