Port battle alternatives for PvE server

[Anymn]

I would love to suggest some Co-op options for the PvE server, as there are currently no port battles. These co-op activities would be optional, so the peaceful, relaxing nature of the PvE server would not be changed.

1. Port raids. Essentially just port battles against an AI fleet, raids will allow players to group up and fight for a port. Once captured, doubloons will be handed out based on battle performance. 
2. Duals. Players are able to challenge each other in the OW, and with mutual agreement a PvP battle is started.
3. NPC Blockades. A group of 5 - 10 NPC's will blockade a random port. This will initiate a 6 hours long lasting battle, which all players can join. When a port is blockaded, you cannot enter this port directly. You'll have to join the blockade instance and sail your way through the enemy lines into safety of the coastal defenses, if you want to move into the port. A coordinated player fleet however can also kill all NPC's, after which the port is free to enter again. Can be BR limited to create a challenge.

I don't know how this would work out on the PvP server (option 1 and 2 would be redundant), but I think option 3 could also be fun on the PvP server.

[Galt]

5 hours ago, Anymn said:

Duals. Players are able to challenge each other in the OW, and with mutual agreement a PvP battle is started.

This is the one thing I would protest. If you want PvP, there is a server for that. If there were to be a PvE server that allowed PvP only on your terms, that would kill the PvP server and really muddle the line between the two. (All this from an only PvP server player)

All the other things sound great though!

[Sir Texas Sir]

The map looks bad with all neutral ports, what they should allow is for ya'll to capture ports from the AI.  Do the port battle just like we do on PvP server against neutral ports.  Than every 3 months reset the map again .  That allows for folks to own ports as clans and have a little more content.  You can already enter those ports with a trade ship and if some one wants other nations to use the port than just open it up to all.  Just make it where player owned ports can't gain hostility, only neutral ones.  Also if the clan is tired of paying for that port they can just drop it at any time and let it go back to neutral. 

As with Galt there should be zero PvP on a PvE only server.  Keep that to the main.  Though I would be more for making a large section of the PvP server PvE only for the casuals and noobs that want to play both sides and not have to look over there shoulder for gank squads that camp capitals.

 

[Slim McSauce]

Raids baby raids! Come on devs hurry up and finish up on localization so you can make this game

[CaptainCaveMan]

The Port Battles on the PvE server would actually be raids....a player fleet attacks that ports AI fleet and if successful are able to raid the ports riches for a 24 hour period. After that they lose access to those riches.   At the end of the 24 hour period a timer would start and that port could not be raided for an extended period such as a week, this would make it so that players would have raid different ports and not the same one every day.  As well the "riches" received would be based upon the players participation/damage during the battle.

[Anymn]

5 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

The map looks bad with all neutral ports, what they should allow is for ya'll to capture ports from the AI.  Do the port battle just like we do on PvP server against neutral ports.  Than every 3 months reset the map again .  That allows for folks to own ports as clans and have a little more content.  You can already enter those ports with a trade ship and if some one wants other nations to use the port than just open it up to all.  Just make it where player owned ports can't gain hostility, only neutral ones.  Also if the clan is tired of paying for that port they can just drop it at any time and let it go back to neutral. 

The problem with claiming ports for your nation, is that it caters first comes, first serves. Once taken, it can't be taken back as there is no PvP combat.

5 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

As with Galt there should be zero PvP on a PvE only server.

8 hours ago, Galt said:

This is the one thing I would protest. If you want PvP, there is a server for that. If there were to be a PvE server that allowed PvP only on your terms, that would kill the PvP server and really muddle the line between the two. (All this from an only PvP server player)

I gently disagree. The main idea about the PvP/war server is that you are in a constant fight around ports (RvR) and that you are always sailing in a fear to be attacked, taking calculated risks. Killing enemy ships is therefore a necessity to also gain an economical benefit against other nations. The PvE/peace server on the other hand is for a relaxing, safe experience, and having a mutual agreed duals does only add content for those players. It doesn't take away any content from the PvP server. 

On a broader perspective: I think decisions about content should not be made based on the fact that some people might change servers, nor that either of the 2 servers have any reason for exclusivity of content. Decisions about content should be made by: 

1. Does the new content adds valuable gameplay?
2. Does this content fits in the nature of the game / server?

In case of the War server, mutual agreed PvP would make no sense, because of the RvR nature of the game. On the peace server, I think it could benefit the game experience for players.

 

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

20 hours ago, Galt said:

This is the one thing I would protest. If you want PvP, there is a server for that

This is the most popular wish in PvE Peace Server community, if you like it or not. 'Consensual' duel does not mean by far PvP ganking like you are used from War Server. People just deny the duel and proceed sailing. The End. Everybody happy and stays on the server.

[Galt]

5 minutes ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

This is the most popular wish in PvE Peace Server community, if you like it or not. 'Consensual' duel does not mean by far PvP ganking like you are used from War Server. People just deny the duel and proceed sailing. The End. Everybody happy and stays on the server.

Sure, but that's basically what the PvP server is turning into. I would also like to state that I think the definition of "ganking" has turning into "getting attacked when I didn't want to be" and ins't actually indicative of any apparent majority. I have little to no issues making my way around the PvP server, even when I do see other players.

Players who quit after one or two kills aren't quitting because they didn't want to fight and so they are tired of being bothered. They quit because they lost and the price of entry for PvP is too high for the new players that only have one or two ships. The second you allow PvP on the server is when you invite in the predators. You will find trolls, people to mine that glorious salt that is a natural byproduct of PvErs. People that follow you around and spam that duel button until you enter a port or accept. People that join the duels to mine salt. People that join your battles to steal the kills/loot or just get in the way. I am surprised that I don't see more about the latter being an issue already. 

This is a slippery slope. You add the ability to kill players that don't want to be killed and people will find a way to abuse it. Now I am all fine with PvErs wanting a bit of PvP, but we have a whole server that is in need of players that would be happy to help you out until you can get the fight you want from time to time. 

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

3 hours ago, Galt said:

People that follow you around and spam that duel button until you enter a port or accept.

Easy remedy: a cooldown counter for each duel request. For one target player or even for all players, so the salty troubleseeker is reduced to maybe two duels maximum between maintenances. People who are used to do gankfest soon will get bored by that and return to PvP.

Another option could be like we had in 'tournaments': you are either agreeing on deadly duel where ships can be damaged, lost, or captured. Or you do a 'tournament' style of duel, which means you keep your ships and all is good afterwards. Of course captains will suggest you to take the deadly version if "you are man enough". By the way, it's a good training for those on the Peace Server who later consider trying out War Server. By duels they will have lost their virginity when it comes to facing human enemies.

--

Question is, if duels should have no 'enter' option for anyone else. If they are restricted to just two participants, no abuse by third parties is possible. Group versus group challenges? Here even I start wondering if that isn't going to far for Peace Server, although I am sure I find supporters for that idea as well.

If PvP fans are afraid we get too much attraction by new content on PvE, then think of something else unique to add on PvP which we don't have! Two seductive super sexy game concepts are better than one (and a resting area).

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Cetric de Cornusiac

[Sir Texas Sir]

On 1/18/2019 at 1:16 AM, Anymn said:

The problem with claiming ports for your nation, is that it caters first comes, first serves. Once taken, it can't be taken back as there is no PvP combat.

I gently disagree. The main idea about the PvP/war server is that you are in a constant fight around ports (RvR) and that you are always sailing in a fear to be attacked, taking calculated risks. Killing enemy ships is therefore a necessity to also gain an economical benefit against other nations. The PvE/peace server on the other hand is for a relaxing, safe experience, and having a mutual agreed duals does only add content for those players. It doesn't take away any content from the PvP server. 

On a broader perspective: I think decisions about content should not be made based on the fact that some people might change servers, nor that either of the 2 servers have any reason for exclusivity of content. Decisions about content should be made by: 

1. Does the new content adds valuable gameplay?
2. Does this content fits in the nature of the game / server?

In case of the War server, mutual agreed PvP would make no sense, because of the RvR nature of the game. On the peace server, I think it could benefit the game experience for players.

 

They why you have it reset every 3 months.  Unless those clans are very active than they have to flip certain ports.  Also if you limiti to one port per clan that gives other clans other ports to go after and you don't have one clan owning all the ports.

If you want PvP on a PvE serve than we might as well merege the servers and make the GoM a PvE zone that you can leave if you want PvP by going into the other zones on the map. If you want safe grinding than just stay in the PvE zone.

The problem is from what I mostly see is alot of the PvE guys want both of the worlds but none of the negatives.  They want the whole dang map too. Which all ready is way to big.   It could be easly done where they make France/Spain the PvE/PvP nations (maybe even GB/US if they combine them and make the US coast the PvE zone).  That still gives you plenty of map to play safe in and the rest can be PvP zones for those that want both worlds.  Other wise stay on the PvE serve that has no content and devs are never going to add anything to that wasn't built for the PvP server first.  They just don't have the main power to run two style of games.

[Anymn]

1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

The problem is from what I mostly see is alot of the PvE guys want both of the worlds but none of the negatives.  They want the whole dang map too. Which all ready is way to big.   It could be easly done where they make France/Spain the PvE/PvP nations (maybe even GB/US if they combine them and make the US coast the PvE zone).  That still gives you plenty of map to play safe in and the rest can be PvP zones for those that want both worlds.  Other wise stay on the PvE serve that has no content and devs are never going to add anything to that wasn't built for the PvP server first.  They just don't have the main power to run two style of games.

First to counter some points:

• We think the Map is perfectly sized for the peace server. There is enough space for solo gameplay, but also some busier ports in which you can interact with other players. I've never seen people complaining about the map size on the Peace server. A smaller map is not needed and takes more development work instead of less.
• It costs no power whatsoever to have two servers online at the same time. It requires an exact copy of the war server with a few flags edited on 'off' like port battles and player battles. The above suggestions are rather easy to implement, as all 99% of the code is already in the game. They only have to make a accept/ignore player battle button, and the solution about duals is implemented.

What I taste in your comment, is that you love the war server. I think you're completely right to do what you think is fun. What I don't like, is that you deny others to have fun on the way they do like it. The peace server has it own right of existence, because the play-style is so much different. It's not fun for either party to merge both servers, as we both have to give things up. Not everyone likes to be full-time on high alert, and the peace server is a perfect place for that.

What I'm asking for, is additional content that would add to the experience of the Peace Server, which doesn't cost a lot of coding work but still retains the feeling of peace.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Anymn

[Anymn]

3 minutes ago, Borch said:

Simply use War server mechanic of open ports. Anyone can try to take a port but the port status stays always the same "open for everyone". Players can keep their OP's that way and only nation and clan owner changes.

So, you suggest that a port stays effectively neutral after a win. That's exactly what I suggested with port raids, but instead of that you have to defend the port after capturing, you'll get the benefits paid out at once.

[CaptainCaveMan]

Port raids would not include the actual capture of the port...and the port would still remain neutral and would not become a national port.  Those who participate in the raid would be given access to spoils that may be available from that port.  Once the raid has ended that port would not be able to be raided for a cool down period of two to three days or even a week.