NethrosDefectus Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 3 hours ago, admin said: more patrol zones will not send players to one spot. Sending all players to one spot kind of defeats the purpose of an open world, does it not? 3
NethrosDefectus Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, admin said: Open world UI will hopefully be ready in spring. Are there plans for a new UI in port? Or is it just the open world interface you are overhauling? Edited March 16, 2018 by NethrosDefectus Terrible grammar and spelling for a native
admin Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 9 minutes ago, NethrosDefectus said: Sending all players to one spot kind of defeats the purpose of an open world, does it not? Are you sure? admiralties or army commands very often sent armies or fleets to one spot. Multiple famous battles happened exactly because armies were sent to one spot. but you can still hunt other uninterested captains elsewhere. combat oriented captains are ok in being sent to the combat zone. 5
z4ys Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Wraith said: Any chance we can send them all to Legends and create a real, dynamic MMO with player-generated content from Naval Action? It would be nice to dispense with imposed PvP arenas and special RoE-for-Sea-Trials-nostalgics in the Open World. No NAL. 5 hours ago, admin said: Dear Captains The goals of NAL were to: Remove the open world (with all its negatives) Remove the gear fear (with all its negatives) Remove the unbalanced battles and ganking (with all their negatives) Remove time wasting and hunting Provide the pure unspoiled experience of pure combat. 10,000 captains tried Naval Action Legends. Approximately 7000 of them got to the second level ship. 6 Captains have reached the Santisima Trinidad. Numbers usually do not lie and despite being a theoretically better game on paper, it did not have player retention compared with Naval Action with all the ganking, sailing, unbalanced fights, and complete lack of UI. It just could not keep players, forcing those who stayed to fight with bots, repeating the situation with the original sea trials. As a result, Naval Action Legends idea is temporarily put on hold. Several best ideas from the NAL will be brought into Naval Action in the future: specifically tournaments, challenges, the seamanship experience, and officers. Learnings from NAL will be applied to NA; with the main overreaching goal - fill the world with players, remove gear fear, and reward players for action (not only for kills). Inexpensive limited feature edition of NA will be introduced in the future that will increase the amount of players in the world, giving the NAL experience of non stop battles against players, in the world filled with players. PS. Regarding the new game type that was prototyped. Testing shown that all game types that could keep players would revolve around new content and adding that new content to 2 games is wasteful. Adrenaline, the feel of the hunt, or being hunted gives a lot more spice to battles and our current plan is basically give this NAL feeling (ability to quickly jump to combat and recover losses quickly) in one game without splitting the audience in two. 1
vazco Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 16 minutes ago, admin said: Are you sure? (...) Multiple famous battles happened exactly because armies were sent to one spot. Best ironical post I've read on this forum so far
vazco Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 3 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said: Yes but not all players can go to every patrol zone. You need an outpost to be in reasonable sail of each zone In this case you should ask for less patrol zones, not more, don't you think? An outpost in Tumbado and LT (or even just one of those) would be enough for you, without having to build one in Aves, Great Corn, La Mona and Guaraguayare.
NethrosDefectus Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, admin said: Are you sure? admiralties or army commands very often sent armies or fleets to one spot. Multiple famous battles happened exactly because armies were sent to one spot. but you can still hunt other uninterested captains elsewhere. combat oriented captains are ok in being sent to the combat zone. Not sure I like your insinuation, I am very much interested in combat. What I am not interested in however is being forced to fight an uneven fight with the basic tools need to survive, such as slowing the fight down or trying to separate enemies away from each other. Or if I need to run away. I fail to believe that the admiralty would've rewarded a captain for deliberately throwing away a ship and the lives of her crew for the sake of doing half a side worth of damage (which in the real world would equate to cosmetic damage of most) to a couple of ships in a six+ fleet before being sunk. Not when that captain could've saved both the ship and the crew to fight another day. All your system is doing is encouraging ganks, what you have is people going out in a large group, outfitting their ships as tanks that can repair around 40% of their hull each time and attacking smaller and easier targets. So tell me, what is the logic in me going to those zones under those circumstances? I remember you saying that it'll be fine because other people will join on your side, however that is not the mentality of your average player. They will instead join the side that gives them the better chance of leeching some easy marks as seen many times. 2
Sir Texas Sir Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, z4ys said: No NAL. Exactly his point, it failed so why are we trying to make the OW like that too? I have no issues with the zones myself, but I think it was stupid to bump up the rewards to some insane numbers before any ROE/BR limits was put into place cause all it did was encourage more ganks and uneven fights that you have no hope to escape cause no one can leave the fight. 2
z4ys Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said: Exactly his point, it failed so why are we trying to make the OW like that too? I have no issues with the zones myself, but I think it was stupid to bump up the rewards to some insane numbers before any ROE/BR limits was put into place cause all it did was encourage more ganks and uneven fights that you have no hope to escape cause no one can leave the fight. Who cares we test stuff. Sometimes logic is bound to time. Sometimes we drink wine while we know we will have headache the next day because of it. Sometimes i believe we get features just so we are entertained even its known that they are flawed.
NethrosDefectus Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 4 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said: Have you decided if they're going to be knowledge book style, or perm slot style? Surely they should be permanent?
Christendom Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 (edited) Time and time again we have seen that PVP events simply act as a bandaid for a crafting/econ system that does not inherently promote OW PVP. After a while the events die down because they simply act as a centralized location for gank fleets to hang out. Day 1 and 2 of the patrol zones was fun, but now it seems that it is basically just a gank or be ganked situation. Elite PVPers seldom fight other Elite PVPers, as seen with RUBLI joining the prussians or the Prussians joining BF battles in the gank zones. This wolf on wolf fighting is basically a myth. Prior to the PVP zone Prussian players would sail up the US east coast around the same time RUBLI and the pirates would and instead of fighting each other they would just join up and sink noobs for EZ marks. There are of course exceptions, but they're limited. The PVP events are only ever going to be a quick fix to a broken system. People need to be given reasons to leave the safety of their capitals. Small fixes to the game in the form of crafting regions or something similar would promote an increase in RVR and push players outside the zones, but for some reason they are not considered. If a character can craft virtually anything in their home capital with zero risk, why should they leave the zones? Alts can get whatever woods they want. Still no reason to leave. The reason the PVP events last time they were introduced seemed to have more staying power was because of the paints and the blueprint drops. They also didn't occur during the entire day. Right now we have a zone that lasts all day, gives bountiful marks to various players....but they there is almost nothing to purchase with those marks. No paints, no special items. Just the same tired of PVP store that's been in the game for months. If you're going to create a zone based around rewarding marks as the primary incentive for PVP in a MMO, you perhaps need to have the ability to cash those marks in and buy rarer items. The zones are already starting to lose steam and it hasn't even been a week. The game needs proper mechanics fixes and less relying on easy to code crutches. Edited March 16, 2018 by ChristenTrash 8
Landsman Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 5 hours ago, admin said: most paints will be for both I love you, fam.
SKurj Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 World of Tanks paints system please... let me choose to pay for permanent or 30 days, and let me collect the different ones so i can swap em out. Perhaps not at will, perhaps only the first time I equip a ship I just bought or built... 1
Corona Lisa Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 40 minutes ago, ChristenTrash said: The PVP events are only ever going to be a quick fix to a broken system. Broken system aka the map is too big. So offering a hotspot is a good solution. Why do you prefer people camping infront of capitals to fight vs 3x or more BR because thats the only fight they get and searching hours for enemies? Is the PvP mission perfect? No and it never will. But with some fixes to BR its a good opportunity to find a quick fight. 46 minutes ago, ChristenTrash said: Right now we have a zone that lasts all day, gives bountiful marks to various players....but they there is almost nothing to purchase with those marks. No paints, no special items. Just the same tired of PVP store that's been in the game for months. They said they add paints for PvP marks.
Percival Merewether Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, admin said: but you can still hunt other uninterested captains elsewhere. combat oriented captains are ok in being sent to the combat zone. Sorry @admin, but I am going to need you to clear that up for me - I feel very provoked by that statement and the following questions may reflect that to some degree. Are you saying that we should focus our PvP on the new PvP-zones and sail less in the OW thus leaving the "uninterested" captains alone? Are you discouraging hunting in the OW which is the very mechanic that you have worked so hard to implement throughout the past 3 years in favour of a tournament based mission-type inspired by the failed NA Legends?? Are you even going so far as to insinuate, that the very players who have worked so hard to help and support you in your OW PvP, are not "combat oriented captains"? It's just a very disappointing statement to see from you considering all the work we've put into your project. Personally I do not mind the PvP-zones much. As long as they do not affect the OW PvP. The "kindergarden-PvP'ers" can go to their PvP-Safezone where they are guranteed a reward with minimal risk. But I'd like you to properly compensate those of us doing OW PvP since that is much harder, more time-consuming, more uncertain and much more expensive. And most of all - I'd appreciate some acknowledgement of what we do rather than be reduced to "non-combat oriented captains". Thank you for your understanding, I hope I have not provoked anyone like i myself was provoked. Edited March 16, 2018 by Percival Merewether 4
GrubbyZebra Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Jon Snow lets go said: Broken system aka the map is too big. So offering a hotspot is a good solution. Why do you prefer people camping infront of capitals to fight vs 3x or more BR because thats the only fight they get and searching hours for enemies? Is the PvP mission perfect? No and it never will. But with some fixes to BR its a good opportunity to find a quick fight. They said they add paints for PvP marks. The map is only too big because there is no incentive to use all of it. Fix the trading system, the map is no longer too big, and the PvP becomes meaningful to boot. It all comes back to not having a developed trading system/economic game. 1
Nelsons Barrel Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, BPHick said: The map is only too big because there is no incentive to use all of it. Fix the trading system, the map is no longer too big, and the PvP becomes meaningful to boot. It all comes back to not having a developed trading system/economic game. The hardcoded limit of players per server out of experience is 2500. Divide that by 11 to see how many players are in the 'capital areas' of each nation. You will realize that there are plenty of places you will hardly find any player even with those amounts of payers. I would prefer a quarter of the map we have right now. Edited March 16, 2018 by Trashman
Christendom Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jon Snow lets go said: Broken system aka the map is too big. So offering a hotspot is a good solution. Why do you prefer people camping infront of capitals to fight vs 3x or more BR because thats the only fight they get and searching hours for enemies? Is the PvP mission perfect? No and it never will. But with some fixes to BR its a good opportunity to find a quick fight. They said they add paints for PvP marks. the map is only too big because we do not have the people to fill it. See my posts about the lack features for casual players and the devs catering to only their devout hardcore PVP base. Casual players like to hop on for an hour or 2, bang out a mission or so some light hunting, craft or haul some crap around and log off. The PVP zones is on paper a good solution for these folks, but then they run into a large WO or Prussian gank fleet...die immediately and then say hello kitty it. Which is basically why the zones have already lost most of their appeal. I would prefer PVP to happen organically throughout the map in the manner of hunting or counter hostility type of functions. To bring this full circle back to the game lacking the proper ability to pull casual players out of the safe zones, if the mechanics guided/forced/encouraged players to leave the zones to achieve their crafting or farming...it would create organic PVP that most of us enjoy. The flag system was good for creating this and the desire to go back to times like that is why so many of us pushed for the raid mechanic. The Patrol Mission on the other hand sounds like a good idea with forced battles you cannot leave, but all they really do is support the gank method of playing. It was said in the posts prior to the launch of the zones that they would simply turn into gank fests and color me surprised....they turned into gank fests. The game lacks players. about 90% of all our issues with this game revolve around a lack of people sailing around. With 2500 people on average in the game even ports way out in the gulf would mean something and be used regularly. More people sailing around would create organic PVP and folks trying to dodge heavy traffic areas would create organic PVP in parts of the map that we very seldom see PVP in right now. How do we get more people? Fix your content to appeal to the casual player. Stop trying to focus on fixing PVP to make it work for 500 people and create content that will satisfy 2000 people. Varied PVE missions. More complex crafting / econ systems. Bounty boards. Raids....whatever. The ideas have been throw up on the forums for years now, but for some reason we keep recycling stupid shit like conquest marks /= victory marks and PVP events /= patrol missions. It's like trying to clean and wax your car every weekend so it looks nice, but totally neglect fixing the engine. It'll look nice in your driveway, but no one will use it. Edited March 16, 2018 by ChristenTrash 3
admin Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Percival Merewether said: Sorry @admin, but I am going to need you to clear that up for me - I feel very provoked by that statement and the following questions may reflect that to some degree. Are you saying that we should focus our PvP on the new PvP-zones and sail less in the OW thus leaving the "uninterested" captains alone? Are you discouraging hunting in the OW which is the very mechanic that you have worked so hard to implement throughout the past 3 years in favour of a tournament based mission-type inspired by the failed NA Legends?? Are you even going so far as to insinuate, that the very players who have worked so hard to help and support you in your OW PvP, are not "combat oriented captains"? It's just a very disappointing statement to see from you considering all the work we've put into your project. Personally I do not mind the PvP-zones much. As long as they do not affect the OW PvP. The "kindergarden-PvP'ers" can go to their PvP-Safezone where they are guranteed a reward with minimal risk. But I'd like you to properly compensate those of us doing OW PvP since that is much harder, more time-consuming, more uncertain and much more expensive. And most of all - I'd appreciate some acknowledgement of what we do rather than be reduced to "non-combat oriented captains". Thank you for your understanding, I hope I have not provoked anyone like i myself was provoked. I think you should read the post carefully first and show outrage second. There are 2 groups of captains 1. Those who are interested in non-consensual pvp. 2. Those who are not interested in non-consensual pvp (uninterested captains) Group 1 will never find group 2 in patrol zones. They will only find them by hunting. You can only find uninterested captains by hunting. Group 2 players will never go to the patrol zones. Group 1 players dont need special invites and will not only hunt everywhere, but also will happily arrive to combat zones as they might have more pvp there (Unlike group 2 players)Original phrase: but you can still hunt other uninterested captains elsewhere. combat oriented captains are ok in being sent to the combat zone. But i am going to need you to clear this for me: Show me how you could transform a phrase - pvp players should hunt for uninterested captains into - you should leave uninterested captains alone? With quotes how this 3 hours ago, admin said: but you can still hunt other uninterested captains elsewhere. combat oriented captains are ok in being sent to the combat zone. suddenly translates to this 1 hour ago, Percival Merewether said: Are you saying that we should focus our PvP on the new PvP-zones and sail less in the OW thus leaving the "uninterested" captains alone? A You must do it because we need to decide if we should phrase our posts differently so everyone will understand them as they are written. 3
NethrosDefectus Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 16 minutes ago, jonnysweden said: Judging by the leaderboards and your response, you only camp capitals and jump to missions in your fail-fit ships. You are not a pvp player just like every carebear who liked your post. . I assume you have some kind of evidence to back this claim up? I can also make wild assumptions without basis. For example I ASSUME by you not displaying your in game name on the forums you have done nothing of note within the game itself and that you have lost ships to people jumping your battles? 1
Percival Merewether Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 35 minutes ago, admin said: I think you should read the post carefully first and show outrage second. Let's take a look at the meaning of my post now you so thoroughly explained yours. 35 minutes ago, admin said: There are 2 groups of captains 1. Those who are interested in non-consensual pvp. 2. Those who are not interested in non-consensual pvp (uninterested captains) DISCLAIMER: I'm not sure I've got the definition down 100% but we'll see if I understand correctly. This is a much better definition than your initial definition of being a "combat oriented captain" and possibly a "non-combat oriented captain"?, I can accept the two groups. I am however curious as to whether a player sailing in the Open World truly is an uninterested captain? I never personally hunt in safe-zones, but I'm assuming these "uninterested captains" were aware of the risks of leaving the safezone before they went exploring? And when people explore in combat ships, do they not intend to fight? I thought all PvP outside the safe-zone was consensual. It's important to say that I also hunt traders, but I've always seen that as a natural part of the OW (PvP server after all). And remember, Hunters hunt hunters, you could argue that that is group 2 vs group 2, right? thus both being "combat oriented captains"? 3 hours ago, admin said: but you can still hunt other uninterested captains elsewhere. combat oriented captains are ok in being sent to the combat zone. What I was provoked by and what I wanted cleared up is whether or not a PvP'er of group 1 (Working by the assumtion that we were both aware of the above mentioned definitions before I posted) is a "combat oriented captain" or a "non-combat oriented captain"? I went under the assumption that a "non-combat oriented captain" was a PVE'er or Trader trying to make a few PvP marks through ganking in fir/fir. I do not consider myself as such and there are many players around who plays like me who are very unhappy with the current tournament-like based rules you have imposed on the PvP-zones. I'm not interested in being sent to the PvP-Zone because of the rules imposed on the battles there. does that make me a "non-combat oriented captain?" I do not find that to be a fair definition for those of us who hunt in the OW. 35 minutes ago, admin said: You must do it because we need to decide if we should phrase our posts differently so everyone will understand them as they are written. In hindsight you should probably have worded your post differently, just as I should have. But I do hope that you see my point of view now; just as I now understand your definition of a "combat oriented captain". But let's discuss patch 21 and the future instead: Are there any plans to even out the rewards for OW hunting vs PvP-zones? eg.: allow us to take a mission to hunt any enemy ships on the map and be reward for such? For the record, I'm not about to end my support for this game as @jonnysweden claims - why would I? It's pretty damn good 23 minutes ago, jonnysweden said: I will try to provoke you by saying this. You seem to get provoked too easily for a hardened pvp player; Judging by the leaderboards and your response, you only camp capitals and jump to missions in your fail-fit ships. You are not a pvp player just like every carebear who liked your post. If it only takes one post (from a non-native speaker) that you did not understand to withdraw you support and turn into an outraged PMS pussy, then your support was always fake. For the Moderators and Admin: Do we accept people calling others "Outraged PMS Pussies" on the forum? @Wraith @Cabral @MassimoSud @SKurj , it would appear you fine gentlemen are carebears 2
Wojtek Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 (edited) Oh my god... I am still waiting for chests and paints for pvp marks, as Admin announced... When, dear admin ;( Edited March 16, 2018 by Wojtek 4
vazco Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 5 hours ago, Wojtek said: Oh my god... I am still waiting for chests and paints for pvp marks, as Admin announced... When, dear admin ;( As soon as you sell me your 700 PvP marks for low price. 1
Slim McSauce Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said: Exactly his point, it failed so why are we trying to make the OW like that too? I have no issues with the zones myself, but I think it was stupid to bump up the rewards to some insane numbers before any ROE/BR limits was put into place cause all it did was encourage more ganks and uneven fights that you have no hope to escape cause no one can leave the fight. OW has plenty of room for all types of play. I don't see why people are complaining about the toury style pvp battles, Until we have 1500 players all traveling the OW simultaneously to casually run into each other then we need PVP missions to focus that. It's not like you're getting lobbied up and sent off to the battle with free ships and repair, the only thing different about it from regular ow hunting is that you always know where the battle's are happening. Once BR balancing is implemented then the ROE will be fine, it's high risk high reward PVP. If people are playing and enjoying it then what's the problem? We need more of these for PVE too, epic events are never seriously done, they're hard to find, very hard to do and the rewards aren't always good which defeats the purpose.. Still, these battles are enjoyable, even with a few gank they're still much more enjoyable than a regular OW gank because you always have a chance if you get back up, but that hopefully won't be a problem with balancing. Other than than yesterday I had 5 straight battles in a row, very high quality battles. Consensual PVP is much better, people join to fight and you rarely if every get into long overdrawn chases dictated by how many sail repairs you can pop in a row. Edited March 17, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson
Landsman Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 7 hours ago, jonnysweden said: I will try to provoke you by saying this. You seem to get provoked too easily for a hardened pvp player; Judging by the leaderboards and your response, you only camp capitals and jump to missions in your fail-fit ships. You are not a pvp player just like every carebear who liked your post. Pretty much what I assumed he was... glad someone could confirm.
Recommended Posts