Forthcoming patch information

[Jan van Santen]

Right now, the entire discussion about PvP/PvE is pointless and should be closed. 

None of us knows  how player number/ distribution reacts to the forthcoming, cheaper version of NA.

Maybe we even need more than 2 servers after that ? 

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Jan van Santen

[Jan van Santen]

Before I forget:

"Danzic" ? that sp is 16th century, 18/19 th century would be "Danzig" contemporary "Gdansk" alternatively 1807 also had the french sp "Dantzig"...

Napoleon created the https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/République_de_Dantzig in 1807...

this is a bit of a political minefield, so maybe just avoid Danzic, Danzig, Dantzig, Gdansk...altogether ?

You could use "Baltic" instead, but that would include Riga, too.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Jan van Santen

[ashley]

22 minutes ago, Staunberg99 said:

No there really don’t. Plenty of ships don't cost dubs.

Plenty of ships do cost doubloons. You would be happy with everyone running around in trincomolee? Because I wouldn't. It would also create a massive gap between those that have time to constantly be online to grind doubloons in PvP and those that don't. How would someone who can only play a couple hours a day ever get a first rate for port battles if their only way of making doubloons efficiently is PvP?

 

Now imagine someone trying to get 100k+ doubloons for a level 3 shipyard, forge and Academy, how are they going to do that in a reasonable amount of time?

22 minutes ago, Staunberg99 said:

Buy with cm and Reals. Ports drop different thing, like Swedish carpenter, make more ports drop more. Increase what you can buy in shop. Plenty of solutions.

Reals are massively inflated due to the reliance on doubloons, doubloons are the real currency, combat marks and reals are secondary. I am capped at how many combat marks I can make a day due to the patrol zone so buying all mods with CM's is unreasonable and they once again have the same issue that doubloons have, if you remove PvE they take too long to acquire.

22 minutes ago, Staunberg99 said:

I disagree. I think it will bring more ppl on the server. The PvP won’t affect PvE players, since it is not forced, and neither will affect the PvE players, In other way than more ppl on the server.

Those that are on the PvE server are there because they have no interest in PvP so adding PvP to their server or closing their server would provide no benefit for them.

Edited April 19, 2020 by ashley
my fuc'king english sucked there

[ashley]

6 minutes ago, Staunberg99 said:

it all depend on price and reward. Lets say we increase reward x10 and lower cost to 1/10 what concequence would you think it will have.

It would still have a negative consequence. If PvE is removed the only way to get dubs would then be to sink player ships. If you increase the reward by 10 that would mean a 3rd rate would be worth around 30k dubs when sunk which is a little overboard but it still doesn't help those that have limited time to play, those people rely on the PvE missions to get dubs to build their ships to eventually make it to a port battle.

 

6 minutes ago, Staunberg99 said:

They will still have nothing to do with PvP, unless they on there own want it. But some casual PvP player will proberbly play on peace. Do there large battles and the PZ where they are allowed to do PvP. Benefit they will proberbly take part in large parts of the PvE on the server. AI Pb, missions, need ships trade and so on. But basicly you are right in that a PvE player to play his own game really need only a very few players on the server. Peace could proberbly give the PvE players all that they want with 20-50 players online.

If you add PvP to the peace server you also have to change the economy on there. Last I checked they were either given CM's in a different way than the war server gets them or anything that costs CM's instead costs dubloons for them. If you add PvP to the peace server you upset the balance of the economy that they have on there leading to no positive outcome for them.

Edited April 19, 2020 by ashley

[Montagnes]

53 minutes ago, Jan van Santen said:

Right now, the entire discussion about PvP/PvE is pointless and should be closed. 

None of us knows  how player number/ distribution reacts to the forthcoming, cheaper version of NA.

Maybe we even need more than 2 servers after that ? 

 

4 servers.

The same number of servers after China was added.

[Beeekonda]

1 hour ago, ashley said:

There has to be PvE on the war server otherwise there would be no economy. Getting doubloons would be extremely difficult without PvE on war server, you'd rely entirely on sinking other ships but even if you sink another ship you are not guaranteed its doubloons, someone else can take them.

Where would mods come from if there was no PvE? You can't rely on the PvP hunt missions for mods, it take a lot longer to get one captain chest from those missions than it does spamming silver chests so you'd drastically increase the cost of mods across the board.

 

There is no outcome that improves the life of a PvE player if you bring PvP to the peace server.

I live on PVP-only diet cant complain about lack of permits/mods/doubloons 

some people just cant leave port without being assured they have the best shit 

 

[Delaf]

Closing pve Server would be really stupid first Because server pvp is actually a real mess and just not give motivation to play on it because of the big number of Russians and some orher thing i guess that kill the game And closing pve server for get more people on pvp will only make the game even more empty lot of people like to come on the game for have relaxing moment not to be ganked like on pvp server so for me pve server should be keep open .

[hoarmurath]

There was a full pvp server, no pve, with naval action legends... It closed because pvp players weren't interested... Wonder why... Maybe because you couldn't gank on it?

[fox2run]

Why not make the game lobby only?

In that way everyone can join a battle when they like?

Axing screening kills a large part of OW anyway and make the big battles available only for old pre-patch players.

I think that the game dies now. For good this time.

[Farrago]

4 hours ago, Beeekonda said:

I live on PVP-only diet cant complain about lack of permits/mods/doubloons 

some people just cant leave port without being assured they have the best shit 

 

I often think that hardly anyone is sailing those super gold ships on the PVP server. And yet we think everyone but ourself is.

Last night I saw someone make an offer to buy on Global: 18kk for a purple Santi; a gold Santi “at any price.” Now I know how I would accomplish such wealth to be able to afford to make such an offer for just one ship, but it would take a lot of Alts and a lot of time in game. It certainly wouldn’t leave time to sail that or any ship regularly in PVP.

[Cathal Brugha]

15 hours ago, Staunberg99 said:

But we might get lucky when peace grow, a few might wanner try war from Tine to time.

I think I want to try the war server out once in a blue moon. Then I join, see I only have a cutter, realize the insane grind I need to do again, and the total toxic chat, and leave.

[Guest]

Here's a radical suggestion, but one that makes sense in light of the upcoming update.

Remove the PvP server and reduce it to a lobby based game. It's the effect of the upcoming patch changes anyway so why not just accept that GL don't have the manpower or the ingenuity to make a functioning sandbox game and remove the sandbox element.

The effects I see from the upcoming patchnotes:

The effect of allowing every port to become a 55p port: Fewer targets in OW (since ppl can and will make ports in close proximity to eachother into econ ports wich reduces travel time, which reduces risk in OW) = more "griefing" on PvE players doing missions = less PvE players = Less hunters = Less targets = Less players in total.

The effect of tp'ing to PB = Less PvP fights = Less content for casuals = Less players

The effect of increasing grind to set up a PB = Less players, let's just be honest: Who among the RvR population likes doing hostility? It's a necessary evil and increasing the bother will only decrease the cost/benefit calculation every player makes before playing a game.

The effect of tp'ing coupled with the frontline system, coupled with the increasing grind to hostility mission: Less RvR = Less content for the zerg = More boredom = Less players.

 

I'm at a loss to explain how any1 can have a game that had so much potential and so royally hello kitty it up.

[Borch]

10 hours ago, Beeekonda said:

I live on PVP-only diet cant complain about lack of permits/mods/doubloons 

some people just cant leave port without being assured they have the best shit 

 

That's beacuase you're not at the bottom of pvp food chain. Less skilled players or maybe the ones that not really got time to participate in pvp that often live from doing pve. You live from playing against them. If you remove bottom of the food chain you will become bottom and when unable to defeat better players you wont be able to get permits/mods/dubloons. In that situation you would have to rely on pve or ganking.

Removing pve from sandbox full loss game, would have significant consequences for the whole playerbase.

[HachiRoku]

23 minutes ago, Staunberg99 said:

Toxic chat. Hear that often, my self see little of that. Rearly open global and Danish chat is basicly dead, but could close it if needed. But look forward to hear from you when a clan on the peace server have lost a developped port in a AI Pb and another clan flip it, before the clan that have developed it can. Ore that will never happen an peace.

Things that are not offensive to you are offensive to others. Imo anyone that takes offence from anything said from an anonymous user in a video game or forum is not mature enough to use them. I will never understand why people take it so seriously. 

[Sir Texas Sir]

So when are we going to see these patches?  Some time next fall?  What every happend to the Wrecker suppose to be ready in Feb?

 

[Archaos]

On 4/18/2020 at 5:14 PM, Farrago said:

I used to have this same opinion. But now I’m not so sure.

”Easy” rank ultimately does little favor for most new players. For example, invariably when I see a newbie asking in chat “what do I do,” he is advised to do the tutorial and exams to get the rank, reals, repairs, etc. And then what happens? He struggles, probably ultimately passes the exams, figures out a way to get a “good” ship with his new rank and money, goes out and gets sunk. Some players may persevere after this, but I believe we lose many players somewhere in this process. The same situation may happen if players bring rank over from the PVE server. They won’t get the play they expect.

I think the game loses more players to being ganked in their small ships the first time they leave the capital zone than to inexperienced players getting sunk later in the game.

If players rank up on the PvE server and come across to PvP and get sunk too much they can always go back to playing safe on PvE rather than leave the game.

[Macjimm]

17 hours ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

You have to understand a "consensual duel" concept or "trafalgar PvP events" to sign up for is NOT "forcing PvP onto Peace Server".

Who is forced?

The ones who voluntarily sign up for either a duel or whatever PvP events being offered?

I tell you, the whole server would function just like now, nobody is harmed.

You participate in the new content. Or you don't. Period. I see no urge whatsoever.

You are correct.  I don't understand how "consensual duals and sign up PvP events will not have an effect on those who prefer PvE.   PvP players that lobby to add PvP onto the Peace server are suggesting FORCING PvP onto players who left the competitive environment of the War server.  Even if players can avoid fights with other players the culture would be changed.  Allowing PvP would attract a non-peaceful mindset.  The atmosphere of the server will change.

Change the War server, rather than the Peace server,  and reduce the impact on those that enjoy PvE only.

Relax on Peace Server - All nations are at peace and players cannot attack each other in Peace servers.  There are no port battles and conquest, piracy or privateering.   All ships can be captured from the NPCs. Peace servers are perfect for friendly peaceful gameplay.

[van stiermarken]

20 hours ago, Jan van Santen said:

Right now, the entire discussion about PvP/PvE is pointless and should be closed. 

None of us knows  how player number/ distribution reacts to the forthcoming, cheaper version of NA.

Maybe we even need more than 2 servers after that ? 

 

every attempt to attract more (and also new) players to this game ended in a disaster (sorry to say it that way).

you'll have a short population grow for one or two month and then a decrease again to those hardcore(!) players like us.

and the reason for this are well known, not only by the community here (the forum is full of good (ignored) suggestions and rejected (well worked) ideas).

[ashley]

19 hours ago, Staunberg99 said:

Build in an action House where you can by dubs for 25 real. Plenty of sulotions. But think it is a given if you change a game, adjustment need to be made.

My remark to no PvE on war was because somebody stated as a fact, that peace was PvE, hence no PvP. Thats why I said war PvP no PvE. I am not against PvE on war.

So people are going to be happy that their dubs that are worth 300-350 reals now are going to be worth 25 reals soon? I don't think so. Every MMO ever has shown that you can't have PvP without PvE. All of your solutions end with either making dubs extremely hard to get which fuc'ks over 1 part of the player base or making them extremely easy to get which fuc'ks over the other part.

19 hours ago, Staunberg99 said:

does anybody expect if you change an inviroment by ading new stuff, that everything els should stay the same? But that said I level an account to kontraadmiral(dane) I did not lose 1 ship. How many ships do ppl actually lose on peace?

Of course you need to change stuff, but first you have to ask if it needs changing at all and how does that change benefit certain players? For those on the PvE server, no PvP change will benefit them.

Edited April 20, 2020 by ashley

[admin]

6 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

So when are we going to see these patches?  Some time next fall?  What every happend to the Wrecker suppose to be ready in Feb?

 

For your information wrecker is in game and there was even an public in game event which allowed players to capture it
https://steamcommunity.com/games/311310/announcements/detail/1710743922846386467 

We do not have informatoin when its going to be part of the event again. 

[admin]

10 hours ago, Lars Kjaer said:

Here's a radical suggestion, but one that makes sense in light of the upcoming update.

Remove the PvP server and reduce it to a lobby based game. It's the effect of the upcoming patch changes anyway so why not just accept that GL don't have the manpower or the ingenuity to make a functioning sandbox game and remove the sandbox element.

The effects I see from the upcoming patchnotes:

The effect of allowing every port to become a 55p port: Fewer targets in OW (since ppl can and will make ports in close proximity to eachother into econ ports wich reduces travel time, which reduces risk in OW) = more "griefing" on PvE players doing missions = less PvE players = Less hunters = Less targets = Less players in total.

The effect of tp'ing to PB = Less PvP fights = Less content for casuals = Less players

The effect of increasing grind to set up a PB = Less players, let's just be honest: Who among the RvR population likes doing hostility? It's a necessary evil and increasing the bother will only decrease the cost/benefit calculation every player makes before playing a game.

The effect of tp'ing coupled with the frontline system, coupled with the increasing grind to hostility mission: Less RvR = Less content for the zerg = More boredom = Less players.

 

I'm at a loss to explain how any1 can have a game that had so much potential and so royally hello kitty it up.

See Lars.. Everyone has to do what they are good at. When we stopped management by committee on this forum and started doing what real player wants, what is right for the game and us online stopped falling and revenue started growing. To do that we just had to stop listening to players like you as you first have no idea about things you are suggesting and have no financial incentives if you are wrong.  All things you complain about will make the game  better for others.


edited by the suggestion of @Staunberg99

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, admin said:

See Lars.. Everyone has to do what they are good at. When we stopped management by committee on this forum and started doing what is right for the game and us online stopped falling and revenue started growing. To do that we just had to stop listening to players like you as you first have no idea what you are talking about and have no financial incentives when you are wrong.  All things you complain about will make a better for others 

bye lars. 

Name one suggestion I've come up with that you actually listened to.

That being said - you're right. I have no financial incentive to make a right or wrong call. That doesn't change the fact that I, and many others cared deeply for the game, the time period, the community and actually for the project of GameLabs as a whole. It also doesn't change the fact that your reply is arrogant and short sighted.

One final question if you will:

Tell me why we have an OW at all? What is gained by having the OW? And am I wrong in my presumption that players will go the easy route and make econ upgrades as close to crafting centres as possible? And will this not reduce traveltime (which granted can be beneficient) but also decrease the chance/likelyhood of finding targets in the OW?

Granted that was more than one question, but I would appreciate a reply nonetheless.

 

"bye" admin.

[Captain Cid]

Wrecker was announced as craftable ship... 

[admin]

4 minutes ago, Staunberg99 said:

Pretty sure he is a real player. I play with him. Fair enough you disagree with him, but to Call him, I guess a fake player, Well thats a new low. 
To my knowledge he is not the only one have concerns abouth the changes. Are they also not real players?

We did not say he is a fake player? Where did we say it. We said he has no idea what he is talking about. And all who thing that TP to the battle is bad are mistaken. 
They are mistaken in one thing - its bad for them. But they are a minority

Majority of players do not want to be zerged and want a real chance for a port battle. We are removing the screen because the community did not handle themselves and abusers during screening and just passed this responsibility onto us by means of tribunals. I have no desire to sit in tribunals all day, so i am removing screening and give a small group an equal chance. 

[admin]

19 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

Name one suggestion I've come up with that you actually listened to.

 

I am not good at being a central midfilder or mezzalla on a football pitch. I am not giving advice to mezallas and do not complain when they do not play as i tell them. We listen to useful feedback (even from critics) thats why Steirmarken flag collection and intrepido(banned) collection will still be a thing. As they proposed something useful and needed. Most features in game are by suggested by players, but we stopped working up by a committee. But the suggestion framework must be fulfilled.

So if you dont like Teleport to port battle - fine - but dont say shit about my opinions if they differ from yours. If you feel the desire to curse when responding to my ideas - get out of here and cool off.