Redundant security zones for Britain, Spain, France.

[Sir Texas Sir]

11 hours ago, Barbancourt said:

They aren't about "need".  They're about giving players more options for using different areas of the map, as well as generating some extra incentive for people to use that part of the map. 

They all ready have tons of ports over there folks could capture but no one will do it.  Making all the captures le isn’t going to change any thing.

41 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

French protected Louisiana was a failure as long as there was no choice to spawn there or tp  there for noobs in Martinique, that was way too far for them, with nothing particular to motivate them. Even as a pve safe space, as no foreign fleet was sailing there, that was just one of the most boring place on the map.

I actually thought they’d still had the option in those two nations to pick where to start until I switched my Spanish char to France.   I did the same on PVE as I just delete it and start over as I never redeem my xp over there and you have to start at port royal.

[Angus MacDuff]

So what is the thinking?  4 or 5 ports in a single reinforcement zone?  Was it announced? @admin?

Edited February 4, 2019 by Angus MacDuff

[Barents]

2 hours ago, Grundgemunkey said:

why  would it drive players away ?   belize is a ghost town .... maybe the spanish do more pve in vera cruz than habanna .. give up habbana as a safe zone that is a ghost town too

not sure about new orleans its too far away to bother sailing

Because clans have setup their bases and warehouses in this areas. They would need to move everything and espacially for the french it is a  very long sail if you keep in mind that a wipe is upcoming anyway.

[Angus MacDuff]

33 minutes ago, Barents said:

Because clans have setup their bases and warehouses in this areas. They would need to move everything and espacially for the french it is a  very long sail if you keep in mind that a wipe is upcoming anyway.

They said they would take away the zones...not take the ports from you. 

[Barents]

22 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

They said they would take away the zones...not take the ports from you. 

I don´t even have an outpost there.

It would make sense to connect it with a future wipe. No need to rush this in and risk annoying even more players.

[Christendom]

16 hours ago, Barbancourt said:

They aren't about "need".  They're about giving players more options for using different areas of the map, as well as generating some extra incentive for people to use that part of the map. 

You still have the option to use different parts of the map.  Now you just can't do it without any risk.  As it should be.   If you want the juice, you gotta squeeze.  A clan member of ours has something like 150k doubloons that he's gotten primarily from hitting AI trade ships from towns like Key West and Saint Marys.  Occasionally he gets caught.  It's the price of being in a multiplayer game on a PVP server.  

If you want to farm doubloons with zero risk of losing them to other players, go to the PVE server.    

Players sitting in a secondary safe zone on far corners of the map ganking AI ships in 1st rates right by the capital zone is bad for the game.  

[Archaos]

2 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

They said they would take away the zones...not take the ports from you. 

But as many people have already pointed out that once the ports become capturable then they will be prime targets. So if you have your clan and personal warehouses and lots of ships in these ports you are going to have to look at moving a lots of stuff to somewhere safer.

As usual with many such posts from the Devs, they pull the pin and toss the grenade in there and let the confusion begin rather than clarify some of the questions raised. i.e. questions like which ports are actually counted as GB secondary zone? Does the removal of safezones also mean that the ports now become capturable etc. Such simple things for them to answer but they keep quiet and let people speculate and then wonder why people get upset.

Edit: Sorry I reread the original post again and they do say these areas become capturable, but there is no clarification on what actually counts as the secondary zone, and nothing to aid people moving their stuff out of these zones.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Archaos

[van Veen]

2 hours ago, Christendom said:

You still have the option to use different parts of the map.  Now you just can't do it without any risk.  As it should be.   If you want the juice, you gotta squeeze.  A clan member of ours has something like 150k doubloons that he's gotten primarily from hitting AI trade ships from towns like Key West and Saint Marys.  Occasionally he gets caught.  It's the price of being in a multiplayer game on a PVP server.  

If you want to farm doubloons with zero risk of losing them to other players, go to the PVE server.    

Players sitting in a secondary safe zone on far corners of the map ganking AI ships in 1st rates right by the capital zone is bad for the game.  

While I agree with all you said, removing safe zones does not solve the root cause of the problem. 

Problem is that NPC fleet are an infinite source of income. The value of a sunken NPC just respawns without a cost. Grinding NPCs is low risk, high income. Safe zone or not makes no difference. Less safe zones just puts a little more risk to it which is a good thing. 

To get rid of the dull grind, you gotta give NPC ships meaning and value in terms of cost. NPCs should be valuable afloat, not sunk. 

Edited February 4, 2019 by van Veen

[Barbancourt]

10 hours ago, Christendom said:

If you want to farm doubloons with zero risk of losing them to other players, go to the PVE server.    

Players sitting in a secondary safe zone on far corners of the map ganking AI ships in 1st rates right by the capital zone is bad for the game.  

You can't farm doubloons very well in a reinforcement zone.  In open waters I spent about a month "farming" doubloons, and only made about 2500 or so total - I can't remember the exact number.  It just isn't a problem. There's nothing about players playing the game that's "bad for the game". 

[Dalai Lama]

I agree it's totally healthy for a mmo when players have no intention to move around and sit in a spot fighting npcs on a pvp server.

[Magallanes]

Great!!!...Belize (Mordor) 😎

Edited February 5, 2019 by Magallanes

[Raekur]

Not sure what the "original intent" of the secondary areas was but now that players have setup there and are now being forced to move their entire inventories will not end well. Same as it did not do the game any good when the players were forced to merge to a single server. As I am sure it might come as a shock to some but not everyone wants only pvp 24x7. If they wanted that there are a multitude of other games out there that cater to just that. Hell War Thunder is strictly pvp and nothing else. The reason some play naval action is because of the crafting and the NON pvp aspects. Those aspects are being slowly altered to cater to the established pvp players.  (low level grind being non existant thus forcing players to remain being targets for longer periods of time, No Ai to combat to gain experience without sailing over 200k from port and even then for the low level there is near nothing to fight as most are lineships, And now the economy is going to get jacked up thus forcing non strictly combat players to be targets for a greater period of time) When you look at one thing it is not much, when you see a pattern starting to emerge then there is a problem.

[Citoyen]

On 2/1/2019 at 4:46 PM, admin said:

as they did not have any influence on the goals they were supposed to achieve.

@admin

what were the goals they were supposed to achieve?

[Slim McSauce]

17 hours ago, Henry Durnin said:

I agree it's totally healthy for a mmo when players have no intention to move around and sit in a spot fighting npcs on a pvp server.

you can blame poor world building for that. Limited to 8 outposts only? No wonder no one moves.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Multiplayer & Conquest, Slim.

4 outpost for crafting coop and 4 outposts in the frontlines for battle.

That's a proper NA.

 

 

 

 

[Slim McSauce]

8 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Multiplayer & Conquest, Slim.

4 outpost for crafting coop and 4 outposts in the frontlines for battle.

That's a proper NA Conquest way of life.

4, count em, 4 outposts for RVR. 

4 outposts. No more, we have a limit here folks!

Edited February 6, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

How many Conquest can you be at the same time ?

Four, right?

That's why you need 4 then !  

[Dalai Lama]

We have to make people want to leave the zones. I agree that the current game design doesnt promote moving out from zones too much. 

But I've always been a promoter of using motivations over restrictions.

Lets put the end game content away from the zones, no matter pve/pvp/rvr or trade. There should be no or little content for a rear admiral in his 1st rate near capital zone.

[Slim McSauce]

1 hour ago, Hethwill said:

How many Conquest can you be at the same time ?

Four, right?

That's why you need 4 then !  

Frame it in your mind how you want, arbitrary limits are indefensible when things like taxes exist.
Obviously no one is going to take a port if they can't utilize it because they've ran out of outposts. It's not rocket science.
But do wonder about all the empty ports on the map, ya know world building matters too.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Angus MacDuff]

1 minute ago, Henry Durnin said:

We have to make people want to leave the zones. I agree that the current game design doesnt promote moving out from zones too much. 

But I've always been a promoter of using motivations over restrictions.

Lets put the end game content away from the zones, no matter pve/pvp/rvr or trade. There should be no or little content for a rear admiral in his 1st rate near capital zone.

I agree with you 100%.  The issue is the new players who seem to need content close to the capitol.  I would suggest that they need to be encouraged to leave the Reinforcement zone as well.  They just have to be given more direction (which I believe is coming).

[Christendom]

On 2/4/2019 at 2:08 PM, van Veen said:

While I agree with all you said, removing safe zones does not solve the root cause of the problem. 

Problem is that NPC fleet are an infinite source of income. The value of a sunken NPC just respawns without a cost. Grinding NPCs is low risk, high income. Safe zone or not makes no difference. Less safe zones just puts a little more risk to it which is a good thing. 

To get rid of the dull grind, you gotta give NPC ships meaning and value in terms of cost. NPCs should be valuable afloat, not sunk. 

The idea is to organically push players as they farm fleets into zones where they can interact with other players.  Removing the secondary safe zones does this in a sense.  Rather than pushing players out of their areas, it brings hostile players in.  Which will work, but not for long.  For admin to properly fix this problem we'd have to spend development resources on things that actually need fixing instead of combat models and boarding.   

 

[Dalai Lama]

2 hours ago, JG14_Cuzn said:

let’s not get into the limited port discussion here.  The map is way too big to limit the amount of ports we have. 

 

As to getting people out of the R zones.... 

Simple answer: 

make Ai non taggable in zones. 

well whats the purpose of a R zone then? just make the 1-5th rates Ai untaggable

Edited February 6, 2019 by Henry Durnin

[van Veen]

3 hours ago, Christendom said:

For admin to properly fix this problem we'd have to spend development resources on things that actually need fixing instead of combat models and boarding.

First of all, there should be an idea of what this game is all about. Grinding to make a fortune quickly becomes a dull activity. Check my suggestions here

 

[Gott365]

Just to understand it correctly: All cities in the R-Zones will be turned neutral, right? Can we get any info about their future BR´s and whether we are to keep our warehouses in these cities or not?

[Angus MacDuff]

7 minutes ago, Gott365 said:

Just to understand it correctly: All cities in the R-Zones will be turned neutral, right? Can we get any info about their future BR´s and whether we are to keep our warehouses in these cities or not?

Why would they become neutral?  Because no clan owns them?