Safezone? Yes! For max lvl too? No!

[IndianaGeoff]

This game is a good example of the Tragedy of the Commons.

Quote

The tragedy of the commons is a term used in social science to describe a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

[Barbancourt]

12 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

And some of those ports are taken ages ago and no one fights over them.  We need port wipe to come with next big patched and let’s see which nation/clans are still active. 

I'm not keen on re-doing a bunch of AI fleet grinding on neutral ports, and that would also result in a lot of players quitting because they'd be losing their ships, resources, buildings, outposts, etc when their ports change hands in the chaos while they're offline. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Barbancourt (rownd)

[Pada]

14 minutes ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

I'm not keen on re-doing a bunch of AI fleet grinding on neutral ports, and that would also result in a lot of players quitting because they'd be losing their ships, resources, buildings, outposts, etc when their ports change hands in the chaos while they're offline. 

If they can't take it to start all over again then they shouldn't been playing an Alpha testing stage game in the first place. A lot of players seem to forget that the game isn't even released yet and take everything way to serious.

[Sir Texas Sir]

35 minutes ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

I'm not keen on re-doing a bunch of AI fleet grinding on neutral ports, and that would also result in a lot of players quitting because they'd be losing their ships, resources, buildings, outposts, etc when their ports change hands in the chaos while they're offline. 

While they are offline?  You mean while they are AFK and not playing the game so there is no reason for them to own those ports and if they didn't want to loose something, they should of keep them to capital waters.  IF they are active they can flip the port fast and retake it under there clan or a new one names.   We need to test things and we aren't testing them with the merge and new players and such.   Remember this new patch coming up is suppose to have new hostility system with it so that would be a good time to do it with the UI and such to test things.  Ports should be changing hands any way and if they aren't there to stop it they aren't playing the game.

20 minutes ago, Pada said:

If they can't take it to start all over again then they shouldn't been playing an Alpha testing stage game in the first place. A lot of players seem to forget that the game isn't even released yet and take everything way to serious.

Exaclty folks forget that all the time.  Honestly I'm suprised we haven't had a few dozen wipes so far in this game over the last two years I been here testing things.  We are getting real close to the switch to a beta stage or even release soon so we need to do as much testing as we can. 

[Barbancourt]

45 minutes ago, Pada said:

If they can't take it to start all over again then they shouldn't been playing an Alpha testing stage game in the first place. A lot of players seem to forget that the game isn't even released yet and take everything way to serious.

So, even more players quitting sounds good to you?

 

[Barbancourt]

23 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

While they are offline? 

Because normal people play computer games for a few hours maybe one or two days a week and regularly do something else with their weekends? 

 

[Hethwill]

3 hours ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

Because normal  the majority of people play computer games for a few hours maybe one or two days a week and regularly do something else with their weekends? 

 

Normal is discussable But what you say, is true.

Personally speaking is easier to play a computer game during the week in the evening than on weekends.

But majority of people do buy finished games  or when they back/KS alphas they either know what they are up to or they wait until release ( like I did with 3 recent big games, didn't touch them through the entire test EA ).

[Pada]

4 hours ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

So, even more players quitting sounds good to you?

 

Of course it doesn't sound good but it's not the end of all things. We don't need a lot of players to test the game, if we lose them after release then we have problems.

Wipes should be expected and there will be at least 1 more wipe I would say. If they are needed, loosing some players is better than not developing the game. I did the XP grind 3 times by now and I wouldn't care if I had to do it one more time and surely I'm not the only one that thinks that way.

XP is safe by the way.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Pada

[Barbancourt]

9 minutes ago, Pada said:

XP is safe by the way.

XP isn't the worry.  It's the materials and ships that people have, which they will either lose or have to spend hours hauling across the map yet again.  (done that twice this month already)  Wiping the ports would pretty much kill what's left of my clan. 

[Slim McSauce]

21 minutes ago, Pada said:

Of course it doesn't sound good but it's not the end of all things. We don't need a lot of players to test the game, if we lose them after release then we have problems.

Wipes should be expected and there will be at least 1 more wipe I would say. If they are needed, loosing some players is better than not developing the game. I did the XP grind 3 times by now and I wouldn't care if I had to do it one more time and surely I'm not the only one that thinks that way.

XP is safe by the way.

Or we completely sacrifice the current user experience for the release players by mega testing 10 different versions of NA all wiped one after another to see what works best

I don't think the NA community is ready for such abuse

[Hethwill]

Ready for that since the 1st day of EA until the last day of EA.

As should we all, Early Access backers

[IndianaGeoff]

18 hours ago, Pada said:

Of course it doesn't sound good but it's not the end of all things. We don't need a lot of players to test the game, if we lose them after release then we have problems.

Wipes should be expected and there will be at least 1 more wipe I would say. If they are needed, loosing some players is better than not developing the game. I did the XP grind 3 times by now and I wouldn't care if I had to do it one more time and surely I'm not the only one that thinks that way.

XP is safe by the way.

Successful games gather players as they develop.  Successful games build more servers as they grow towards release. This game is doing the opposite.  It is getting less playable and popular.  Successful games see forums that get busier and busier, this forum is dead too.  The idea it will make it to release is laughable.

Edited March 1, 2018 by IndianaGeoff

[SKurj]

1 hour ago, IndianaGeoff said:

Successful games gather players as they develop.  Successful games build more servers as they grow towards release. This game is doing the opposite.  It is getting less playable and popular.  Successful games see forums that get busier and busier, this forum is dead too.  The idea it will make it to release is laughable.

and a month after release 60%+ of the population moved onto the next big thing...

[AeRoTR]

Do not listen to these minority who wants to seal club the newbies near capitals. I have many outposts at freetowns, when I undock PVP is just there, waiting for me  , but come on let's go kill some inexperienced captains, why should we fight against other PVPers ?

[Landsman]

On 27.2.2018 at 6:55 PM, Pada said:

Hahaha, this perfectly sums up the level of mental deficiency of people who argue max rank safe zone protection and no incentives to leave the zone is a good thing...

[IndianaGeoff]

15 minutes ago, Landsman said:

Hahaha, this perfectly sums up the level of mental deficiency of people who argue max rank safe zone protection and no incentives to leave the zone is a good thing...

Life is so much easier when you stand up your own strawmen to attack.  Actually, it fits perfectly with this game and this debate.

[Sea Nettle]

ITT- A bunch of people who bought a PVP game about pirates and navies and yet have every excuse and reason they can muster to never actually have to engage in that activity.

They tell you forcing them to will have them quit but for all intents and purposes, only the AI will ever know they exist.

Unless of course they are exploiting the economy safely and using those resources to screw your nation over economically.

The only safe zone they need in this game is one for newbs that exists in an alternate map and teaches them how to fight, complete a mission, craft and navigate the menus. 

Unfortunately, Sea of Thieves is soon upon us and the community this game could have had and kept won't be returning.

Why might you ask?

Because the game is trying to compete in a PVE market as a PVE game with no engaging PVE, and at the same time trying to compete in the PVP market as a PVP game with never-ending restrictions that prevent PVP.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Sea Nettle

[IndianaGeoff]

2 hours ago, Sea Nettle said:

Because the game is trying to compete in a PVE market as a PVE game with no engaging PVE, and at the same time trying to compete in the PVP market as a PVP game with never-ending restrictions that prevent PVP.

 

Pretty well.  But I disagree on the PvE stuff.  Plenty of successful games have engaging PvE with PvP beside it without forcing people to walk out to slaughter nightly.  But then again, they have thousands of players regularly.

 

[Hethwill]

Not disagreeing with your statement but hardcore permadeath games have also thousands of players regularly. With environment and other players to contend with where mistakes really zero your char and assets.. So it is kind of a moot argument to throw this or that game style. There's literally thousands of games with thousands of players regularly.

Caribbean server PvP infrastructure may well be supported by unchecked and untouchable PvE which is exactly the discussion. No chance to stop the machine that feeds the war, that builds the ships for the fleets.

If you look at it, not being open to PvP is a "waste of time". You sail and click. Better would be if you'd just click and sail with a pvp ship immediately, no ? Maybe that's the unveiled desire, the unspoken truth of the mmo instead of the true grit of the age of sail simulator. The only similarity between both servers is that both have exactly the same PvE opportunities. What sets them apart is exactly the PvP.

There's no around zones unless we have always ships on the fly whenever we want them, and that is - right now !

 

 

 

 

[SKurj]

5 hours ago, Sea Nettle said:

 

Unfortunately, Sea of Thieves is soon upon us and the community this game could have had and kept won't be returning.

Why might you ask?

 

SOT... zero progression, free ships, its just an FPS dressed up to look like ships, not a valid comparison.  SOT will come and go, and be in the bargain bin by the fall.   (yes i have been in beta)

[Sea Nettle]

Being able to play with your friends on one ship together cooperatively as real pirates is quite enthralling.

This game is arguably worse than when it released.

The fact is that people who seek a pirate experience will choose that particularly given the state of this game. 

You are quite delusional as to it being in the bargain bin.

That's the destination of this game when you tag the official release on the store and find that the people who were going to buy it did so when it first dropped and have no intention of returning.

Steam doesn't have this hidden, large community of enthusiasts who ignore intriguing games because they are labeled early access as opposed to release.

People who wanted this game bought it back then, a niche community it was and will always be, just like POTBS.

Unironically, as I've stated many times before in various threads, this game has taken the same approach and met the same failures of POTBS by trying to straddle the fence in its systems and restrictions.

Sad, because one can tell the devs had to have had experiences within POTBS  given the similarities of the systems.

This game has one chance at saving itself and that is by offering what none of the others do.

A hardcore pirate simulator in an individualistic and competitive environment. Essentially Sid Meier's Pirates, multiplayer, complete with leaderboards for various aspirations of the timeline and genre but with the combat system it has.

At this point in its lifespan, even that is going to be an uphill battle given the time it will take for those changes and rebuilding the community.

Anything less and one can view POTBS for the inevitable conclusion.

The national population imbalances and port battle scheduling issues cannot be fixed. The system is a lost cause.

It will monopolize the dev teams time while the game becomes stagnant from content and improvements being neglected to try and "balance" the impossible.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Sea Nettle

[the Kidd]

7 hours ago, Sea Nettle said:

Being able to play with your friends on one ship together cooperatively as real pirates is quite enthralling.

This game is arguably worse than when it released.

The fact is that people who seek a pirate experience will choose that particularly given the state of this game. 

You are quite delusional as to it being in the bargain bin.

That's the destination of this game when you tag the official release on the store and find that the people who were going to buy it did so when it first dropped and have no intention of returning.

Steam doesn't have this hidden, large community of enthusiasts who ignore intriguing games because they are labeled early access as opposed to release.

People who wanted this game bought it back then, a niche community it was and will always be, just like POTBS.

Unironically, as I've stated many times before in various threads, this game has taken the same approach and met the same failures of POTBS by trying to straddle the fence in its systems and restrictions.

Sad, because one can tell the devs had to have had experiences within POTBS  given the similarities of the systems.

This game has one chance at saving itself and that is by offering what none of the others do.

A hardcore pirate simulator in an individualistic and competitive environment. Essentially Sid Meier's Pirates, multiplayer, complete with leaderboards for various aspirations of the timeline and genre but with the combat system it has.

At this point in its lifespan, even that is going to be an uphill battle given the time it will take for those changes and rebuilding the community.

Anything less and one can view POTBS for the inevitable conclusion.

The national population imbalances and port battle scheduling issues cannot be fixed. The system is a lost cause.

It will monopolize the dev teams time while the game becomes stagnant from content and improvements being neglected to try to "balance" the impossible.

 

On ‎05‎.‎03‎.‎2018 at 9:45 PM, Hethwill said:

Not disagreeing with your statement but hardcore permadeath games have also thousands of players regularly. With environment and other players to contend with where mistakes really zero your char and assets.. So it is kind of a moot argument to throw this or that game style. There's literally thousands of games with thousands of players regularly.

Caribbean server PvP infrastructure may well be supported by unchecked and untouchable PvE which is exactly the discussion. No chance to stop the machine that feeds the war, that builds the ships for the fleets.

If you look at it, not being open to PvP is a "waste of time". You sail and click. Better would be if you'd just click and sail with a pvp ship immediately, no ? Maybe that's the unveiled desire, the unspoken truth of the mmo instead of the true grit of the age of sail simulator. The only similarity between both servers is that both have exactly the same PvE opportunities. What sets them apart is exactly the PvP.

There's no around zones unless we have always ships on the fly whenever we want them, and that is - right now !

 

 

 

 

Top comments !!! nothing to add...

Hardcore... Permadeath (your ship)... Competetive...

thats the chance of this game !

[Jerome]

Pirates, of all "nations" should have ZERO safe zones but more free towns.

[John Cavanaugh]

When resources were scarce, not just rare woods but basic crafting materials, and had to be bought by contract, many clans spread out all across the map, and there were dozens of hotspots for pvp, as well as rvr for basic needs. If building production is drastically reduced in safe zone and natural port production increased map wide, this incentive would likely return and bring many out of the safe zones. It is good to have a hub to return to, but an economic incentive is probably more of an effective means for getting people to sail out, as it was once.

[Fellvred]

One of the questions around RvR (and safe zones etc) is whether one nation should be able to stop another nation from going to war effectively via economic means.

Would stopping a group of players from PvPing the way they want to help the game at all? Would it be fun for the nation that 'wins' or would it just reduce the number of decent battles?