Player characters limitations vote.

[LeBoiteux]

I don't like the idea of one character per server when the only servers are one PVE server and one PvP server, cause I like the idea of being able to switch from PvE to PvP and vice-versa as it was last week, that is with the ability to keep your XP, but not your gold / assets.

Besides, I'm not sure one PvE character and 1 PvP one would please lots of families.

 

However I'd like to find a way to create several characters per account without ruining the Eco. As Prater wrote, it'd be great to be able to create 3 char : an Explorer, a Fighter and a Crafter/Trader, often operating from 3 different locations.

3 characters for one nation and shared labor pools are interesting tracks.

[Oliver H. Perry]

Elitist is the word in think of too.

 

And did you think about the fact that more players like us will come, and if they are not satisfied may ask for refund, make bad comments, and prevent people from buying the game?

And if they are not enough people playing, how long do you think the game will last?

"il n'y a pas pire aveugle que celui qui ne veut pas voir"

We are telling you things but as it doesn't suit to you're vision, you just throw them away...

Compromise plz, it won't harm you, you'll just have to tolerate another gameplay style.

 

So let me see, if they don't allow multiple players per account, they're going to lose business?  Whose business, those who wouldn't have paid anyways?? 

[cmdrbobcito]

Just a reminder, not as a moderator, but fellow player... we all have opinions, but not all opinions are of equal value.  The "market/community" provides the value of opinions.  Just say'n...

[Anarcke]

@ Oliver Perry

 

Well, let's try to clear it.

What i think is that now, the majority of players are hardcore gamers, but tomorrow, that small community will have to share the game with EA players. Those new players may be more casuals gamers, not all of them of course, but (my guess) more than now.

This amount of casual gamers should increase at release, and maybe they'll become the majority if the game satisfy them.

If not, well, some can leave bad comments on steam for example, potential new players will read the bad comments, and decide not to buy that game.

At this moment, the game will lose money indeed because if the gameplay was more "open" or "casual friendly", they would have paid for it.

[SKurj.]

@ Oliver Perry

 

Well, let's try to clear it.

What i think is that now, the majority of players are hardcore gamers, but tomorrow, that small community will have to share the game with EA players. Those new players may be more casuals gamers, not all of them of course, but (my guess) more than now.

This amount of casual gamers should increase at release, and maybe they'll become the majority if the game satisfy them.

If not, well, some can leave bad comments on steam for example, potential new players will read the bad comments, and decide not to buy that game.

At this moment, the game will lose money indeed because if the gameplay was more "open" or "casual friendly", they would have paid for it.

 

Once again you are throwing a tantrum, if you had spent the time spent posting in these threads, on shovelling driveways or cutting lawns, you could have found the money to buy a second copy and keep both you and your daughter happy. 

 

 

AND.. further supported the developers of a game you appear to be so passionate about..

Edited January 18, 2016 by SKurj (ex JW)

[Oliver H. Perry]

@ Oliver Perry

 

Well, let's try to clear it.

What i think is that now, the majority of players are hardcore gamers, but tomorrow, that small community will have to share the game with EA players. Those new players may be more casuals gamers, not all of them of course, but (my guess) more than now.

This amount of casual gamers should increase at release, and maybe they'll become the majority if the game satisfy them.

If not, well, some can leave bad comments on steam for example, potential new players will read the bad comments, and decide not to buy that game.

At this moment, the game will lose money indeed because if the gameplay was more "open" or "casual friendly", they would have paid for it.

 

I'll bite.  As someone who has, maybe, 2-3 hours a week to play (I'm about as casual as you get), please explain to me how requiring either one character per server, or multiple characters that must all be members of one nation but share a single crafting pool, benefit only hard core gamers.  Please also explain how this will drive off players who would have otherwise purchased their own copy of the game.  Please explain why you think you are entitled to have more than one player play the game, with all functions independently, without paying the developers, who are relying on this game to put food on their tables and pay their mortgage.  Be specific.

 

Edit - While you're at it, please also explain why you feel it is ok to blackmail someone by threatening to badmouth their hard earned labor because they won't give you something they've worked so hard on for free.  I'll wait.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Oliver H. Perry

[Anarcke]

SKurj,

 

You don't know my job, where i work, or why, plz think just 2 minutes before posting, it is 0012 here, and finding another job is not that simple.

Find something else please.

 

Oliver Perry,

 

You're right, i managed to play the game without paying anything, because what i do is Pirating...

Bite if you want.

I'll just keep saying what i think could be good for the game, and also for my fun, i admit it.

 

Response to your edit: If you think this is blackmail to write your opinion about a game you played on the tool at your disposal in that purpose in steam, i can't help you. And you can also write something good if you want. And i have never said I would do it, just that someone may do it.

I'm not threatening anyone, just saying that the 1 character per account option can restrain the amount of potential players interested in the game, and giving a second option wich is one character per server...And again i have paid the said amount you paid to be able to test and give my opinion...

 

Maybe i wrote it wrong speaking of my fun, i was talking of fun ingame, i don't see how it is trolling.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Anarcke

[Albator]

If not, well, some can leave bad comments on steam for example, potential new players will read the bad comments, and decide not to buy that game.

At this moment, the game will lose money indeed because if the gameplay was more "open" or "casual friendly", they would have paid for it.

 

Arguably this kind of Doomsday comments are mostly proven wrong... People are able to form their own opinions quite effectively. Those who can't may simply not be the type of people interested in a game like this anyway. Just saying, you are entitled to your opinion but reading such comments is tiresome. And you can voice them in a better manner...

[Oliver H. Perry]

SKurj,

 

You don't know my job, where i work, or why, plz think just 2 minutes before posting, it is 0012 here, and finding another job is not that simple.

Find something else please.

 

Oliver Perry,

 

You're right, i managed to play the game without paying anything, because what i do is Pirating...

Bite if you want.

I'll just keep saying what i think could be good for the game, and also for my fun, i admit it.

 

So you're completely unable to defend your assertions?  Calling everyone else elitist for daring to demand the developers get their due reward for making such a great game?  Threatening to start a negative comment campaign to damage the game's reputation?  That's pretty telling sir.

 

Also for your fun?  So you're admitting to trolling?

Edited January 18, 2016 by Oliver H. Perry

[Anarcke]

English is not my native language, i try my best to write it so people can understand what i'm trying to say.

The last comments have been ad hominem attacks.

What i say is that it could be good for some players to be able to create one character per server.

They are already 2 servers, i hope there will be more in a short time, because of new players.

How does it harm to allow players to create one character in the different servers?

[Prater]

I'll bite.  As someone who has, maybe, 2-3 hours a week to play (I'm about as casual as you get), please explain to me how requiring either one character per server, or multiple characters that must all be members of one nation but share a single crafting pool, benefit only hard core gamers. 

 

Crafting hours should not be shared across servers, only all characters on a single server.  If he is arguing for one player per server, then that is little different than advocating one player per account, except you can have one on each server.  There is not really anything to protect against with multiple character exploiting in that case.  If in his argument, it is one per server, if Character A creates a snow, then Character B on a different server having a separate crafting pool that is unused makes no difference, since assets can't be swapped between servers.

 

Heck, I could get by with it being one character per server per account.  I'll just have my explorer on the pve server.  It isn't ideal in my opinion, but doable.

 

 

Edit:  P.s.  Also, I would say that the whole share steam account games thing is on steam and not the person who utilizes the steam feature.  Why Steam has a family share plan, I don't know, but it is legitimate to use.  Whether it is fair to the developers, that is another question and one which I am inclined to say no to.

[SKurj.]

one thing this thread has done is present some good arguments for the pve server.  I can't see any negatives to allowing multiple characters per account on the pve server and even allowing them all to have their own crafting hours..

 

Without the conquest game and pvp it just doesn't matter..

[Growl]

Removing Neutrals seems like a bad idea to me.

 

There were cool neutral parties like the Hanseanic League, privateers, pirate hunters, and merchants.

 

Not everyone has a country they are interested in the current nations, and rather would either work for the highest bidder(once implemented?) or just stay in their own business.. and Pirates can be offputting both due to challenge and the inevitable playerbase.*

 

I know the most pressing reasons why its being considered, and what problems it has.

 

But in effect the problems already go away if you limit the characters to one per account, I don't see any reason why you would remove the faction completely. Sure it generates more revenue when the exploitative players to create spies, but as far as I know this isn't about the revenue, and rather its about the gameplay.

 

In effect it feels like Tyranny of Majority. With your arguments against Neutrals, keep in mind the only real enemy they can fight (right now) is the Pirates. Which is great because Pirates will most likely be the largest faction in the live game**, and every other Faction has to fight both Pirates and their other enemies, while Neutrals could stem the tide with a steely focus.

 

*(Sorry Pirate Players, you might be ok.. but you too must realize what crowd will be the most attracted to the Pirate faction once the game goes live)

**(Pirate faction will most likely be the largest faction if NA gets more players when its goes live, it's pretty simple.. the single most known word from the age of sail, most media coverage, most movies, rule of cool etc.)

Edited January 19, 2016 by Growl

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

To be fair, unless you were a Pirate, you couldn't fight neutrals anyway. In fact, with a PVE server, the neutral faction is totally unnecessary. Admin has stated that if you want to form a new nation, you'll want to go Pirate.

[Wilberforce]

Removing neutrals seems like a really bad idea. 

 

More importantly though, why isn't there an option to allow 2 characters per account? I only ask, because I'm terribly interested in seeing how the difference in game play and teamwork between Nationals and Pirates develops with a legitimate population. 

 

My rational in opposing limiting only one character per account:  

 

1) It is not historically accurate to lock a captain to one flag. Practicably though, doing so will limit people's playing experience. Honestly, I'd like to play in the nation that best fits my playing style and mindset. I won't know which nation that truly is until the population in the game develops. 

 

2) NA game play develops very slowly on the open sea and being locked into only one character will force the game to go even slower. Having multiple characters (even in one nation) spread across the map will not be possible and we will be at the mercy of tremendously impracticable time sinks.

 

My two cents... 

[Doschichis]

I'll rephrase what I meant to say earlier.

So, how do I experience the game up to now? I have my main pvper, my trader, and an explorer.

Say 1 hour I want to pvp at the front lines. I can do that. Say the next hour I want to explore South America and work on mapping. I can do that right now because of multiple characters. That is the gameplay I have right now.

Now there is this public poll to remove this gameplay. And the only way I can continue what I've done for 9 months now is to buy 2-3 copies of the game ($40-80 more)? Screw everyone who says so. Why do you get such a say, that if I continue my current gameplay I have to buy more copies? Premium feature that adds another same nation character slot for $5, that is fine. Whole new copy? Nope, not fine.

It is fine to limit something based on exploiting if protections can't be built in. But to limit it based upon a poll is not okay when money is involved and protections can be built in to either stop exploiting or make it extremely hard and tedious where it would be faster and more productive to do it the legal way instead of exploiting. but legal multiple character use should remain possible once the game is fully released. A delayed version due to not enough developer time at the moment is ok.

Some people say they do all 3 areas on one character. Really, explain to me how you explore in South America or the Gulf and the next moment if you get bored of that, you are pvping or patrolling in the Antillies? I can do that right now. Why should any player get to decide that to continue what I do now that I have to pay $40-80 more? Screw those people. They call me elitist and a jerk, but they are the jerks for wanting to force me and others like me or family players to pay more for the game. They are the elitists who wish to limit and restrict how people are currently playing the game without exploits. Yes, remove exploits, but there is a way to do this and preserve multiple characters per account.

 

actually, I see a problem here, if you want to fight at the front line, you cant explore SA or craft some first rate at the capital.

with your 2 characters, I can see that people will have one at home for crafting, one at the front line for fighting. If you loss a fight, you can switch back to your alt, make a new first rate, send it to your front line port.

 

btw I think its a mistake that the devs lets us have more than 1 character from the very beginning.

 

also, other games dont have 1 character limit because most of them are pve and sometime pve. They also dont have long teleport cooldown like NA. The map also smaller in term of travel time.

[Laik]

Removing neutrals seems like a really bad idea. 

 

Removing neutrals is crucial because otherwise people will use them (even if they have to buy second copy of the game) to buy resources from every port they wish (like they did before the wipe). By having people required to buy a new copy + choose a nation you limit it (granted not completely but considerably).

 

 

More importantly though, why isn't there an option to allow 2 characters per account? I only ask, because I'm terribly interested in seeing how the difference in game play and teamwork between Nationals and Pirates develops with a legitimate population. 

 

I would support the idea of having 2 characters of nation/pirate but only if the pirates get a dedicated and unique gameplay which limits their interaction with nationals considerably (or makes it works at completely different terms). Unfortunately right now Pirates work exactly like a nation with ability to attack each other and inability to enter neutral ports. That is by far not enough.

 

Say 1 hour I want to pvp at the front lines. I can do that. Say the next hour I want to explore South America and work on mapping. I can do that right now because of multiple characters. That is the gameplay I have right now.

 

Trouble with multiple national characters is you could be in few places at once, bypassing the teleport cooldown and thus defeating it's purpose. From economy perspective you can 'cover' twice as many ports and deny resources to other people from your nation (and we know very well how selfish people in online games are). From PvP perspective you could place 2-3 characters in different areas of the map and bypass need for strategic movements. 

 

I am afraid most people won't treat those characters like you do, as completely seperate, but will abuse them as much as they can, exactly like it was happening up to now.

 

Having multiple types of gameplay for one player could be handled by proper teleport system. I really liked the idea of no-cooldown teleportation, however it would need to come with 2 limitations (apart from what we have now). Firstly, there should be a cooldown on 'economy activities' after teleporting to prevent hoarding of resources. Secondly there should be a limit of ships of the same type you can own (or have 'active') to prevent people placing 5 1st rates in 5 different places to be in all of them at once. This would also force people to sail different ship types and 'prioritize' areas where they put their best ones.

[Bulwyf]

You should be able to have as many characters as you like on the PVE servers. I would prefer that option for the PVP too but understand some people are paranoid about spying.

 

As to neutrals they should remain, there were there after all.

[Growl]

Removing neutrals is crucial because otherwise people will use them (even if they have to buy second copy of the game) to buy resources from every port they wish (like they did before the wipe). By having people required to buy a new copy + choose a nation you limit it (granted not completely but considerably).

 

With one character per account limitation, wouldn't that just create business opportunities and actual real economy for those resources? Kind of what Trader players would want, don't you think?

 

 

To be fair, unless you were a Pirate, you couldn't fight neutrals anyway. In fact, with a PVE server, the neutral faction is totally unnecessary. Admin has stated that if you want to form a new nation, you'll want to go Pirate.

 

On a PvP server (tbh, the game in its current state does not really fit PvE) the Neutrals are very valuable faction for both Trade (creating economy for resources for all Nations) as well as targets for Pirates, and finally as Pirate Hunters (they have no other factions to fight, creates pretty clear focus)

 

 

Don't get me wrong, NA can survive fine without the Neutral faction, but why limit the factions when the real problem is the characters per account?

 

Finally, I could be wrong, but I would reckon spies were invented before the Age of Sail. So Some parts of the "problem" are overblown due to inconvenience to players.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Growl

[SKurj.]

As we have seen up to now, neutrals sail around NA unopposed at almost 0 risk while they buy up resources, build parts etc, meanwhile the nations and pirates are taking their ports....

 

Neutrals can open outposts anywhere they like except pirate ports..  

 

The way neutrals are setup currently they are not neutral at all, they are being used to support the nationals, so they should be treated as such.

 

I think with some mechanics changes perhaps they could be allowed to return.

[Scorpio Shirica]

As we have seen up to now, neutrals sail around NA unopposed at almost 0 risk while they buy up resources, build parts etc, meanwhile the nations and pirates are taking their ports....

 

Neutrals can open outposts anywhere they like except pirate ports..  

 

The way neutrals are setup currently they are not neutral at all, they are being used to support the nationals, so they should be treated as such.

 

I think with some mechanics changes perhaps they could be allowed to return.

 

I agree, I think... in principal, they are a neat idea.

 

However, I also think that they aren't being used the way the devs intended. 

[admin]

Picking nation was a very hard choice for me yesterday. I think having options to play for another nations were nice after all. And benefits and flexibility outweighed the negatives (spying and such). 

Whoever thinks the same please change your votes and/or post your opinion too. If you think 1 character is good please post here as well.

[z4ys]

1. Port Battles are for economic war. When alts get back especial when they aren't restricted to the same nation why should I capture a port when I just can create an alt give him some money and buy all stuff from my enemies.

2. As long as labour hours and tp aren't shared by all chars per acc. Don't bring back multiple chars per acc at one nation.

3. Picking a nation in the begining is now a choise that matters.

4. You have 1 life and you are only 1 person so 1 char per acc is only realistic!

 

1 char per acc = fine

Edited January 20, 2016 by z4ys

[Schuetzengel]

3 chars per nation with shared labour hours between them (still can be "abused" for os recon/trading agents)

can play for every nation, but have to wait for 30 days before able to switch to another nation

[Tac]

Choosing a nation should be a hard choice possibly the most important you make.it Isn't like there's a lot of factions/nations to choose from and there's more than enough information to help you choose if you look.i hope you don't dilute this choice, I'm afraid I'm in the camp of the negatives outweigh the flexibility.