Give some Love to the PvE Server.

[Sunleader]

With Legends taking the Field. The PvP Server has pretty much lost all its reason to be Played by me.

Especially because there hasnt been PvP on PvP Server for almost a Year anyways. Just Ganking and Griefing.

 

 

But PvE Server is not really even in a playable state right now.

It seems to be a 1 to 1 Copy of the PvÜ Server just with PvP Disabled.

 

We need.

 

Far more NPCs

Much more Trade opportunities

Production of all ressources and distribution of them over the Map to encourage long range trade.

A System to Conquer Ports in PvE. For example by making it a contest of Threat Missions vs Control Missions. And by allowing the Defending Clan to Equip the Port with Ships to build up its Defenses.

More Events and Missions including Transport of Goods and Search Missions for certain Targets on the World Map (like Bottles but resulting in a quest item or battle instead of random loot)

 

 

You could get far more Players on PvE Server than you ever had on that Ganker Server. If you would just stop treating PvE so badly....

[Yngvarr]

7 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Far more NPCs

Much more Trade opportunities

Production of all ressources and distribution of them over the Map to encourage long range trade.

PVP server could also benefit from this...

[Rychu Karas]

This is one of the games where servers are closing without even game release date: ]

[Sunleader]

46 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

I would keep a low profile. Just in case devs decide to close pve server too.

Merging PvE Server into PvP Server would be Suicide...

60% or more of the PvE Server Players wluld just Quit the Game Forever.

 

29 minutes ago, Rychu Karas said:

This is one of the games where servers are closing without even game release date: ]

Their own fault really.

Open World Games with PvP not being harshly restricted always die fast or only retain very small playerbase.

 

And its a Devils Circle.

Cause

Few Targets for PvPers --> less Restrictions for PvP ---> More frustration from Ganking and RPKing --> Less Players --> even fewer Targets for PvP --> even less Restrictions for PvP--> even more frustration from Ganking and RPKing --> even Less Players --> you get the idea

 

51 minutes ago, Yngvarr said:

PVP server could also benefit from this...

Aye.

But with 80% of PvP Server population being RPKs and Gankers which want only as many easy kills as possible. Getting anything through there for PvE is pretty much impossible

[Sunleader]

2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

What do you think is going to happen with the EU based clans?

 

Dont kniw

I can make a prognosis for PvE Players cause I know the Mindset.

So I know 60% or more would be gone instantly if they forced onto PvP Server.

 

 

I am not Familiar with current Clans on PvP Servers. So I cant really judge how they will react.

[Paco de Lezo]

Abandonaríamos desencantados NA un porcentaje muy importante.

[Paco de Lezo]

El PVE necesita mas vida, tiene mucho potencial si se le quiere dar.

[Vernon Merrill]

2 hours ago, Intrepido said:

What do you think is going to happen with the EU based clans?

 

For someone with the name "Intrepido", you sure are a pessimistic dude....

[Landsman]

2 hours ago, Sunleader said:

60% or more of the PvE Server Players wluld just Quit the Game Forever

So... 60% of 50 players... ? Those 30 lads sure will be missed. You forgot that most PvE players play on the "PvP" server anyways...

[LeBoiteux]

On the PvE server, we need :

1) AI aggressiveness (tagging bots)

2) Vahines on the beach

Edited December 20, 2017 by LeBoiteux

[Jean Ribault]

4 hours ago, Landsman said:

So... 60% of 50 players... ? Those 30 lads sure will be missed. You forgot that most PvE players play on the "PvP" server anyways...

LOL, you can be relied upon for a trolling comment in pretty much all threads with PVE in the title.  Kudos and high marks for consistency my friend.    Anyway, there are more than 50 players that consistently play there, even though it's not a huge number.  To the point of the thread though, if and when there is attention paid to the specific needs of the PVE server, then there will be a greater population there.  If indeed it is removed/merged, I'd have to agree that the majority of PVE-server players would probably no longer play, at least not play much, or would gradually disappear.  I think that would be a shame, but it's dependent on the vision of the developers.  The remaining players who would play the pvp server would still do PVE activities there and be subjected to the criticism you just displayed, and so would also eventually quit.  In the end, I'm not sure how losing those players is good for the game.  And no matter what playstyle is preferred, I'd have to agree with the title of this thread which is to give some love to the PVE server.  Or just delete it this week and rip off the bandaid already.

 

[Landsman]

23 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

Kudos and high marks for consistency my friend. 

[Sunleader]

My post seems to have been deleted without any comment or reason.

So I.ll be so free to repeat.

 

If Players continue to Leave thanks to RPKs and Griefers running free.

There wont be much of a vision left for the Devs.

 

Players Play Games to have Fun.

No Fun = No Players

 

Think about how incredible Fun it is to be Raped by a Player or a Group of Players which you stand no chance against anyways.

And you know fairly well why this Game will be dead before its even Released if they dont start increasing PvE Content

 

[Hethwill]

3 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

My post seems to have been deleted without any comment or reason.

Not a single post in this thread has been moderated. 100% of posts are visible.

No moderation discussion please. Carry on with healthy discussion.

[Jack Jones]

More pve player means more potential crossover PvP players. Look after the PVE players and improve everyone's chances.

[Sunleader]

On 21.12.2017 at 12:04 PM, Flash Jack said:

More pve player means more potential crossover PvP players. Look after the PVE players and improve everyone's chances.

Exactly.

But most of all.

More Players and a stable Playerbase means more Money for Development and thus more additions to the Game.

[AngryPanCake]

Personally I feel the dev team has been working on making great improvements to the core of the game, of course mostly focusing on PvP mechanics right now, however the improvements (ship characteristics, models, game mechanics) will eventually benefit the PvE server in the long run. I'm still hopeful they are actually aware of its potential.

These efforts are in no way wasted, but with some adaptation to the PvE server play style and addition of PvE specific changes, they will greatly improve the outcome and increase the interest and the longevity of this amazing game.

Many PvE players have made great suggestions over the months I've been playing this game, which shows significant dedication to NA.

Keep it up.

 

[Preble]

Reposting this from an earlier topic on this subject...

The recent national rework that saw most ports revert to neutral control was perhaps logical for PvP but makes little sense for PvE where port conquest is not an option.  My perception is that PvE is more of an environment for players who generally operate outside of clans/groups and on their own--much as single cruisers (frigates, sloops of war, commerce raiders) did in the Age of Sail.  As such, the national structure is more important to PvE than PvP, which is now experimenting with a much more clan-centric model that explicitly requires conquest.  

It would be great if the PvE server could see ports revert to national control and orient itself around the activities of cruising warships rather than battle fleets.  This could harness the open world by including historically realistic trade routes (the British, for example, sent their convoys outbound from the British isles to Barbados, to Jamaica, and homeward bound from Jamaica to Belize, around Cuba by the Florida Strait, and across the Atlantic by way of Nassau and Bermuda) for commerce raiding, and adding new categories of missions like convoy escort and attack (which would encourage players to take more full use of the open world map by sailing longer distances), and single/multiple-ship (i.e. not fleets) port raids (which would deliver goods and prize money, and possibly ships in the case of a cutting-out expedition).

These would require the restoration of national control over ports, and in the case of the long-distance commerce-related missions, a means of plotting positions on the chart with a similar resolution as can be accomplished with a sextant and chronometer in open ocean (so something similar to, perhaps slightly less accurate than the previous GPS-like system, but much more accurate than the current, rather unhelpful dead-reckoning only method).

[DevsGoFluckYourselves]

Kindly Delete This Account

Edited July 31, 2020 by KindlyDeleteThisAccount

[monk33y]

Doesn't conquest on the pve server turn in into a second pvp server?

I'll never understand players who want risk free pve but who also want risk free rvr....! Next thing they'll want is risk free pvp!!!

[Jean Ribault]

9 hours ago, monk33y said:

Doesn't conquest on the pve server turn in into a second pvp server?

I'll never understand players who want risk free pve but who also want risk free rvr....! Next thing they'll want is risk free pvp!!!

 

I'm self-interpreting what was said, but I think the suggestion is related to conquest over neutral ports versus AI, not conquest of other nations' ports?  So on that interpretation, no it wouldn't be pvp, but still pve.

Personally rather than having port battles (which don't interest me much) I'd rather see neutral ports on the PVE server go national at times based upon the hostilities around the map.  So for example, enough battles in any county converts the closest county capital loyal to the nation that generated that hostility.  Against AI in the county of course.  And self-healing as well, where the port(s) go back to neutral after a certain amount of time of reduced hostility level.  That makes some sense to me for this server.  With in mind that the starting national ports always still stay those same national ports on this server.

Not sure anyone asked for risk free pvp though, just pve server stuff.

[Sunleader]

9 hours ago, monk33y said:

Doesn't conquest on the pve server turn in into a second pvp server?

I'll never understand players who want risk free pve but who also want risk free rvr....! Next thing they'll want is risk free pvp!!!

 

8 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

 

I'm self-interpreting what was said, but I think the suggestion is related to conquest over neutral ports versus AI, not conquest of other nations' ports?  So on that interpretation, no it wouldn't be pvp, but still pve.

Personally rather than having port battles (which don't interest me much) I'd rather see neutral ports on the PVE server go national at times based upon the hostilities around the map.  So for example, enough battles in any county converts the closest county capital loyal to the nation that generated that hostility.  Against AI in the county of course.  And self-healing as well, where the port(s) go back to neutral after a certain amount of time of reduced hostility level.  That makes some sense to me for this server.  With in mind that the starting national ports always still stay those same national ports on this server.

Not sure anyone asked for risk free pvp though, just pve server stuff.

 

Well.

I would actually Support Voluntary PvP. Meaning Events where Both Sides are Open to Players.

So PvP is Possible. But 100% Optional.

 

 

As for RvR.

I would actually Suggest a PvE System.

Ports can be Conquered from the AI by gaining enough Hostility and then Attacking it and Winning.

Once the Port is Owned by a Player Nation. Other Nations can Conquer it by gaining Hostility around that Port.

If a Hostility Threshold is Hit. An Attack on the Port by an AI Fleet is Started. And the Defender has to Defend the Port against an AI Fleet.  The AI Fleets Power depends on the Hostility gained.

Defending Nation can Reduce Hostility by doing Garrisson Missions.

Reducing Hostility before a Port Battle is Initiated will prevent Port Battles from happening.

Once a Port Battle is set. Reducing Hostility will weaken the AI Fleet that will carry out the Attack on the Port

 

This way we would have a Full RvR System with Player Run Conquest and without PvP

 

 

 

Most of all however. Whats missing is General PvE Content.

 

[monk33y]

But Neutral ports are open to all! Restricting players isn't very pve of you!!

[Jean Ribault]

22 hours ago, monk33y said:

But Neutral ports are open to all! Restricting players isn't very pve of you!!

 

Look it appears that you probably enjoy trolling PVE-server threads, but if your argument here is actually genuine, then I have to respond by saying I see nothing wrong with a variety of additional pve-only activity on the pve server, more so than just missions and OW fleet attacks.  Ports dynamically changing adds content for the players without adding direct conflict with the players (or so-called pvp as you say).  That is after all why the server exists.  The only conflict that self-healing port changing suggests is losing access temporarily to outposts and all that entails.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Jean Ribault

[monk33y]

12 hours ago, Jean Ribault said:

 

Look it appears that you probably enjoy trolling PVE-server threads, but if your argument here is actually genuine, then I have to respond by saying I see nothing wrong with a variety of additional pve-only activity on the pve server, more so than just missions and OW fleet attacks.  Ports dynamically changing adds content for the players without adding direct conflict with the players (or so-called pvp as you say).  That is after all why the server exists.  The only conflict that self-healing port changing suggests is losing access temporarily to outposts and all that entails.

Unless I'm mistaken doesn't the "easy" nations have large greenzones (stupidity large) to satisfy your pve-(Ness)!!!

Why would you want a non combat server (pve) to have AI rvr and conquest? Surely capturing ports and restricting other nations players from being able to access goods/ports is not pve! But instead a form of pvp!!!!!

Pve should NEVER have any form of pvp! Hence no rvr and no pvp!!!!! 

There's a PVP server for those who want to take part in pvp and rvr.

(incase you didn't know 'pve server 'players, gb and france and usa have huge greenzones where you get protection!! Many safe places to use/hide in...