Merging servers at next wipe

[Marten van de Voerde]

+1 for the merge, at least for EU PVP servers. As for the wipe, it will happen and you will loose anything except your xp (normal and craft), so gold, ships, outposts, blueprints etc. But it will not happen untill basic diplo is implemented, as dev stated today.

[Blood Eagle]

I support this, if anything will kill the game its having low population

[Wilson09]

I´d vote for a role-playing server....

Edited March 22, 2016 by Wilson09

[sacapus]

I assume this is talking about merging PVP3 back into PVP1.

 

But bear in mind PvP1 was "full" on several occasions.

 

The U.S. needs its own PvP server but I do question the need for that PvE server, which I think just leads people into boring gameplay. (They may say they don't want PvP but I bet none of them are still around 3 months from now. Extra true as they max out crafting and the PvE server economy literally just stops.)

OMG, PVE = Boring Gameplay ??

 

I disagree completely with your last sentence... Don't worry about what you qualify of "Boring Gameplay", what might be boring for you might not be boring for others.

Assuming than most of them won't be around in 3 months must be proven, until then, its a completely free affirmation.

 

Don't touch the PVE Server, if you don't like it, then stays on your PVP server.

 

If I decide to move o PVP at some point, this will be my decision but for now, I'm completely satisfy and do enjoy my Non Boring Gameplay on the PVE server, sorry to break the bad news to you...

 

Cheers!

[Kyou]

im from Asia, i get 250 in NA, 300+ on EU - but i don't mind the high ping in exchange for an active server/community.

 

you get my Yes on the merge.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Kyou

[ajffighter86]

They need to be prepared to hold more players in a single server if we do decide to merge. I don't want to merge servers and then be surprised if player count picks up again.

Edited March 24, 2016 by ajffighter86

[Heibges]

Arent the open world and combat servers separate things.

 

In Heroes & Generals they have 5,000 players from all over the world playing on one campaign server but when the combat game starts it chooses either NA, Euro, or Asian server.

 

Generals move troop icons around on the Campaign Map with 1990's graphics.  Players only appear in the combat instances.  Huge difference in server load. 

They need to be prepared to hold more players in a single server if we do decide to merge. I don't want to merge servers and then be surprised if player count picks up again.

 

This is the problem.  If the server population doesn't pick up the game is total failure.

 

The Devs must have full confidence that the game pop will rebound as they put in more polished game systems.

 

Asking people to switch and then switch again in 6 months would be gamebreaking.

[Teutonic]

Merging the Server after a wipe is a good idea in my book.

[Bigvalco]

This is the problem.  If the server population doesn't pick up the game is total failure.

 

 

Asking people to switch and then switch again in 6 months would be gamebreaking.

 The server population will pickup when the game gets closer to release, but the point is to not drive away a portion of the community stuck on underpopulated servers as has already happened.

 

 Switching twice would not be gamebreaking, they have stated there will be multiple wipes before full release. Each move can coincide with a server wipe and that way, people do not lose any progress. It's kind of in the title of the post...

[Bert Beard]

How about the developers pay attention to this as well......... instead of silence.

This is regarding the exodus of players from server PVP 2 to PVP 1.

 

 

This has now gotten ahead of the developers and gained critical mass.

Rather than silence or encouraging the movement of players from server PVP 2 to PVP 1 ...........the moderators and developers should have had a plan and told us about it.

 

I'm USA on PVP 2 and my clan leader has just sent an email to all members that an exodus has been under way from PVP 2 to PVP 1 and he will hang on in PVP 2 as long as he can but it's looking like our clan will have to start again on PVP 1.

We are in a dying server that has been left to die by the developers and unless we like solitude we will all have to start from scratch on PVP 1.

 

A few minutes ago PVP 2's population was under 190 ........another drop from the day before.

 

I wonder if the developers realize that this kind of thing will piss off a lot of players from PVP 2 and more than a few will say the hell with this........I'm not starting over again after 2 months because of something this ridiculous...........And quit.

 

This is basically the same as server wipe where you lose everything except your XP.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Bert Beard

[Teamski]

 

 This is basically the same as server wipe where you lose everything except your XP.

 

 

 

Essentially it is unfortunately.  There are many like myself that are hoping that there will be compensation if such an event takes place.....

 

-Ski

[Justme]

Essentially it is unfortunately.  There are many like myself that are hoping that there will be compensation if such an event takes place.....

 

-Ski

You don't lose xp, just money, ships and outpost if you switch.

[Macjimm]

So ...

 

consider this.

 

If we consolidate everyone into one server and then we get a massive amount of new players we have to create a new server (or two).

Currently there is nothing stopping ALL players from joining a single server.  The solution is that simple.

 

The extra servers are an option.  Seems that many people are set on removing other's choice and forcing a limit on others.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Macjimm

[Precious Roy]

Is it very expensive to cloud multiple servers to a single shard? I think some large games only have 1 "server" but I don't know the tech.

[Macjimm]

It is my understanding that extra servers were created to address overpopulation. Is it possible that we may have more than a couple thousand people playing simultaneously again?

Copied from recent thread

I play on both servers PvP1 and PvP2. It is nice to have the choice.

When I'm looking for a higher population server I log on to PvP1.

If we suddenly get a big flood of players it is reassuring to know I can use PvP2 again. 

I even have a place on PvP3 - just in case.

Seems like a great situation with lots of options and flexibility.  IMHO I don't think removing choice and forcing conditions on people improves things.  There are always exceptions.  Currently I'm glad the option for people to create a slot on each server is still available.

[[MCC] Die Antwoord]

It is my understanding that extra servers were created to address overpopulation. Is it possible that we may have more than a couple thousand people playing simultaneously again?

Copied from recent thread

 

I don't see that happening unless the devs wake up and do something about it. Whenever a new game gets out in early access, it instantly draws in most of the the target audience, the guys that are going to be your die-hard, hardcore players, the ones that will spend thousands of hours in your game. The 40$ price tag for these players is somewhat irrelevant... You like sailing boats, sea battle and pirates and you're a hardcore PC gamer? You're going to buy this game whether it's free, 10$ or 100$. That said KEEPING these players interested is KEY to success. They are the players who are going to make or break the game by making extensive reviews, recommending (OR NOT) to friends, they are the passionate ones, they are the ones the devs need to keep an eye on most.

 

The players that weren't hardcore left after 1-2 days, a week at most, so we don't have those anymore, they've been weeded out for the most part. The game is now bleeding core players, and this is bad. In order to prevent this, they need to address the issues of these core players, the main ones being the grind and the declining population.

 

You cannot stop people from leaving, like every game, they come and go, but you need to replenish these players. In order to do this, you need to make the game interesting to new players, the ones who aren't sold on the concept from the get go... For those players (and they are LEGION compared to the guys playing now), a 40$ price tag is a major obstacle. The game is totally worth the 40$, don't get me wrong, but trying to sell this price to a guy who isn't sold on the concept to begin with or even someone who is interested, but not hell bent on getting it is hard. There are TONS of PC games, tons of early access games, there are tons of ways to spend 40$ on Steam and get a ton of good games.

 

Say a random guy starts watching Black Sails and likes the series... He then gets a urge to play a pirate game. He logs on Steam and looks what's available... For 40$, he can get Assassin's Creed Black Flag, he can get Sid Meirs' pirates and he probably had 20-25$ left for some other pirate themed games, so he can end up with 4-5 games easily...

 

Why would he spend 40$ on Naval Action.... an early access game... when he can get 4-5 finished products for the same price?

 

Lower the price... Get more players... The current 2500-3000ish we have on an average night is a bare minimum, you cannot let it slip lower, we need fresh blood... a constant stream of flesh blood to replace the guys who are leaving.

 

When the game is done, EVERYONE that bought the game or almost will come back... Instead of having 5k players coming back.. You'll have 100k... because that 5k will have replenished 20 times over the course of the early access instead of stagnating or dwindeling down to zero.

 

At this rate, this game will have 500 players left in a couple weeks... if that.

 

Don't tell me patches will bring them back... That last big content patch did nothing... nothing at all... we had a surge of 50 guys on the server for 1-2 days and poof they were gone and the bleeding continued.

 

I want this game to succeed and it's really sad to see it die like this not even 2 months after the steam early release.

[Wilson09]

There are reasons for dropping numbers.

 

Lowering price can have the adverse effect.

What "signalling" effect had that been, a game in EA offering bargain prices after 2 month?

 

Even if your arguing makes sense, lowering prices is not the answer.

 

I´d be certainly "pissed off", if they gave a 50% reduction now, expecting prices to rise

for the final release. One reason for buying EA-games is you expect greater prices

in the future.

 

If online numbers drop or not, is not that relevant.

Moreover does it show, that the majority of players went back to a healthy life.

 

What do you expect?

Players need "content", something new / challenges.

 

Only the hardcore grind-machine keeps playing 10-18h per day, in order to have the full

8 outposts filled with 3rdrates / Victories / Santissimas, to be "ready" wherever

and whenever needed.

 

And exactly this is and will be putting off many existing and many new players.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Wilson09

[Captain]

I don't know how it would work, but it seems plausible that they could do a merge after the port reset, since the factions on all the servers would all own exactly the same ports. 

 

Maybe you'd have to delete one or your toons or the other, I dunno. 

 

Anyway I live in hope! 

[Wilson09]

Came up with another solution:

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12471-development-priorities-2/page-9

[Taranis]

If ping and max server populations were no object (as one hopes the masses shall return at some future date when the game has evolved to new heights) - then I would agree.

 

BTW - i think you could probably merge the PvE and PvP populations and handle the exceptions differently.  Not sure how complicated, but perhaps some players could select PvE only in their character generation and be exempt from PvP attacks - but still be bale to take part in PvE activities with the rest of the community.

Edited March 29, 2016 by TaranisPrime

[William Livingston Alden]

merge does not solve the Problems here in the game, Players will still left the game after the merge. the question is Nonsens

[[MCC] Die Antwoord]

merge does not solve the Problems here in the game, Players will still left the game after the merge. the question is Nonsens

 

I agree that the problem is bigger than mergers, but since all these servers were created to accommodate an overflow of players at the steam EA release, they have served their purpose and now have no real use unless the devs manage to get more players in the game.

[William Livingston Alden]

i agree with you in this case and your view. the game is pretty nice and still have a lot of potential. but most People i know left the game because they have a Problem to find those Mission because it is not realy easy to find those  tiny white swords on the sea. and it would be nice to see large AI Groups of battle ships of any kind of ship types. and maybe some more specific missions like explore or Special trade and so on.

 

when Mission will be easier to find, i have no Problem to sail for 10 minutes, then it would be also easier for the newbies to Level up in the game.

 

my biggest Problem in game is to find a Mission, i mean every time i do so my nose is bonded to my Monitor and that hurts my old eyes. but all in all the game is nice and i love the Sound of the cannons and realy well designed ships.

[Thonys]

just one would be nice 

 

with/for pve missions (tag circle and immediate close after 2 minutes)

and open world pvp with tag  timer closed of/in 4 minutes (because of the winds)

Edited April 2, 2016 by Thonys

[Mrdoomed]

I was at first ok with the idea of the merger but now after our population has gotten to were its at NA has become better and probably a bit more realistic. I also like the players on my server and we have built an acually community between all of us. New players comming in quickly figure it out and the population is growing slowly so now im more for keeping the servers seperate.