Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Slow death on the Burning Sea.
Vetarnias
Member UncommonPosts: 630
I posted this on the PotBS forums, but I wanted to share with the forum users here:
Please note: This is only the first part of several points I intend to make. The writing of it is so massive that it might take a few days before the rest of it is completed.
From the moment the game went live, I have heard widespread accusations that the developers of this game have been listening to a handful of beta players, some of whom are now apparently saying "bye-bye, I'll send you a postcard from Cimmeria". Now that they and several others have departed, what is left of this game? I was having a chat with society mates earlier today, and the general consensus seemed to be that this game has two or three months left to live. If you are reading this FLS, I will be blunt: I don't know your financial situation, but if I were you I would sleep better at night if I had Rails Across America 2 or any other project in the pipeline. As a company you certainly have maintained better ties to your playing public than I would have expected, and I thank you for it, but in the end I think Pirates of the Burning Sea will end in failure, probably before the year is out.
I normally don't pay attention to patches unless they solve major issues with the game, so when you are spending most of your time tweaking skills and ship statistics, I know the real problems are by and far going unaddressed. When I hear about the developers making a great deal out of the "new Pointe-à-Pitre" when there are precious few Frenchmen to enjoy it (and based on its reception, "enjoy" is a wicked misnomer) and actually very little to do in the town itself, I get the distinct impression that labour and money are being wasted on the wrong priorities.
As well, I could list a number of small irritants which make the game less enjoyable than it should be -- everyone reading the "Conquest" channel but only Naval Officers being able to talk in it; the impossibility of re-deeding a ship to trade (what happens if the player who sails the society-funded Invincible decides to quit?); unrealistic pirate stealth and the very notion of "debuff" (oh? because you push a button, I'm suddenly more incompetent?) in a game which purportedly aims for some form of historical accuracy over a fantasy setting, for instance -- these only compound the more serious issues plaguing the game at this point.
Here is my list.
"No crying in the red circle": I am tired of hearing this. I think it has contributed greatly to the bad reputation plaguing this game, especially regarding ganking. Over a month ago, I asked Isildur whether "no crying in the red circle" was "in danger of becoming the 2008 version of "Play to Crush" (Shadowbane's motto), even with no advertising campaign built around it". This had to do with coming across his remark made over six months prior, in which he claimed that "‘Play to Crush’ as a selling point and marketing slogan probably lost SB twice the players it ended up bringing them". Nobody at FLS, whether Isildur himself or anyone else, responded to my concern. But even if preventing the motto from being thrown around by players is next to impossible, I am dismayed to see the developers themselves embracing it, from that notorious remark by DrewC about about "how to make it not fair in your favor", to Aether using a graphic representation of the phrase as avatar, to producer Joe Ludwig quoting it on his blog masthead. The players themselves, by the way, seem to have gradually abandoned it, perhaps because they have abandoned the game at the same time (out of boredom, it would seem), which leaves the developers themselves as the only source of propagation.
This might be ancient history and the damage irrevocably done, but it remains that "no crying in the red circle" is embarrassing and is certainly no selling point for any game, as Isildur foretold. On a similar note, I don't believe I need to mention his own predictions regarding games with ganking run amok: "The people who want to gank are waiting for the Next Big Failure to come along, to let them grief noobs for a few months before it shrivels up and dies. This is because every sane developer has learned this lesson: griefing and ganking doesn’t just lose you the $15/mo from the person who was griefed. It has a multiplicative effect, creating an environment in your game, and a reputation outside your game, and people tend to steer clear." I have asked FLS about this remark as well, whether they agreed with it, whether they (especially Isildur) were satisfied with the current state of the game, and what that entailed for PotBS. No answer on any of those points has yet been offered. Reading these and other comments by Isildur about how a game which falls into Situation A is doomed to failure, only to find the developers not only sitting by while Situation A unravels in the game but encouraging it, has me wondering whether Isildur would go Alan Smithee with the current PotBS if the opportunity were made available to him.
(Please understand that I am not targetting Isildur because I seek to make him the object of ridicule, but because I wholeheartedly agree with him on what makes a successful game, and because I want to know why FLS seemed to pursue a diametrically opposed approach in the making of this game (he is after all the lead designer) . I will be discussing some of the points below.)
In the meantime the game has lost two-thirds of its servers and by the impression one gets reading these forums is [i]still[/i] shedding players. Some say they are leaving for a certain other game coming out within the month, but surely the situation does not apply to every player who leaves PotBS. Several mentioned leaving out of boredom; others because of ganking. Probably larger numbers leave without mentioning a reason, but we can surmise they must be no different from those of players who do speak out.
Port Battles: Elitists of the Burning Sea: Port battle at Irish Point on Rackham a few days ago, at 2 AM Eastern time zone to be exact. I am not complaining about the time of battle, though others might; as a matter of fact, even though I am a North American player I am rarely online during our normal "prime time" but play in the middle of the night. For that matter, I am not what you might call a "hardcore" player, so I'm not going to attend so-called "alarm-clock battles" if they fall outside of times when I usually play. So I'm satisfied that I did not have to move to Roberts to find a battle whose time frame suited me. However, even at such ungodly hours there were so many players online that I was placed on the waiting list, with 37 people waiting behind me and myself not getting a spot despite having 5% of all the Irish Point conquest points to my name. I am also not complaining about the lottery idea in general; it's probably the fairest method for choosing participants. What I find ludicrous in this case is that, even at 2 AM (or 11 PM West Coast) on a weeknight, there were at least 52 people lined up to participate in the port battle on our side -- "our side" being the French side, perenially fighting with Spain for the distinction of being the least populated faction in the game. The length of the British opponent's waiting list, I do not know. (And two nights later, at 1 AM, the same situation occurred at Roseau, also against the British.) But because of this excess of participants we have seen the usual elitism rear its ugly head again.
It used to be that the elitism was almost entirely level-based. On one case on Blackbeard when concurrent battles were still possible, the message was "anyone 40+ accept" for the battle we wanted to win, and "everyone is invited to go to that battle!" for the one we wouldn't even have enough people to defend. In another case, I indulged in schadenfreude upon learning that my own side's level requirements couldn't be justified for our low numbers placed them in a position where they could hardly afford to be choosy (insert random reference to the evacuation of Dunkirk here); so they played the elitist card and went to battle with a pitifully less-than-full group which promptly got sunk.
Level-based elitism was born out of necessity because of faulty game mechanics, and you can't blame the players for adopting it. I perfectly understand that in a situation like this you have to make do with the options available to you to ensure victory, and in this case it means letting the higher-level players with large ships enter the battle first. (Much was made of a player sailing a La Belle corvette into the battle at New Orleans recently). But now we are seeing the natural evolution of it into something which bothers me even more: ship-based elitism. At Irish Point, for instance, level-50 people with lesser ships (say, frigates or Fourth-Rates) were encouraged to decline so that people with First- and Second-Rates could enter the battle. (For the record: Our society's Second Rate was placed on the waiting list and never made it into the fight.) And we all know the outrageous prices for those -- so it means the optimized port battle system favours wealthy (therefore hardcore if entirely legit) players or those lucky enough to be sailing one of those expensive ships thanks to their entire society's efforts. Why, just before the Irish Point battle, a prominent French player urged that only those with a "ship of the line or equivalent" should attend. I play a Freetrader on Rackham, and the only ship that truly offers the equivalent of a Ship of the Line is the Couronne. Price tag close to three million doubloons for the equivalent of a Fourth Rate; in other words, really worth it if I could afford it. (Not that it matters, since I'm only level 44 and therefore unable to sail one at this stage.) Any pretense that casual players are in as good a position in this game as hardcore gamers, even if both are level 50 by now, is thereby thrown out the window.
Sure, the lottery system theoretically gives you the chance to attend a port battle even if you only have a Deliverance or Oliphant, but are you prepared to be accused of being single-handedly responsible for the defeat of your side in battle simply for showing up when you have been asked to leave your place to any John Q. Gamer with a Triumphant? Best way to find yourself being a pariah on your own side, and as a level-50 Pariah with a full Forum Alienation skill line, I speak from experience, not for showing up to said battles, but for complaining about this very point.
I happened upon a fantastic post by Yawntastic, which echoes my own sentiments and which I must quote here:
Jan/feb : Game comes out, some players level to max quick, dominate the slots for port battles by demanding lower level players pass on invitations - which they mostly did.
Late Feb: Many of those who passed are now high level, some want to take part in PB's but still get moaned at for not 100% knowing what to do as much as the "regulars". Others go off and try to avoid PBs because of the grief so partake in crafting, economy and helping their societies and nation creating unrest up to 5k and then others finish off the job - this was unappreciated by the elite, yet it continued.
March: Same thing continued, same old faces in the PBs, same old faces whining about not getting into PBs, same old faces demanding people to pass. Many players leave the game, all servers begin struggling for numbers, Roberts manages to keep some interest going due to map win looking promising for both British and Spain.
April: Server transfers, Brits win map, huge amounts of cancellations on ALL remaining servers takes place, amongst the cancellations are the "mainstays" of those who helped a lot with unrest creation, kept the economy flowing with goods, and did all the non-PvP things that keep the game going that most of the a*sholes who think they know it all think the game doesn't need.
May: Posts of "Where is everyone", "This game was a lot more fun when..." and "I'm Bored" start sprouting up on various forums and are posted by the very same people who ran down all the people in Jan-Feb-March and April.
Result: Not enough players overall to create a proper amount of unrest on the server, resulting in there being less than a handful of red zones about, even worse maybe 1 port battle a day overall if you are lucky.
http://www.burningsea.com/forums/showpost.php?p=342362&postcount=108
Which also raises a very good question: How do you learn proper tactics if you don't get a chance to see them in action? To this the standard answer seems to be: "Go read about Nelson". If you wanted to be a purist, you could say that Nelson should be irrelevant to the tactics in this game since he was not even born by 1720. Without going as far as this, and while acknowledging the genius of Nelson's tactics, I think a few things need to be pointed out:
Nelson did not have access to temporary boosts and debuffs. His ships did not bounce off sandbars. He could not entirely rebuild his ship from scratch by running away for two minutes. His patent bridge for boarding First-Rates can't be used in this game. And more importantly, Nelson was not yakking it up on voice chat to tell every ship in his fleet where to go based on an isometric aerial view. Orders through semaphore and code flags, okay. But human error and the fog of war were still distinct possibilities. It can happen in this game, but not nearly as much as it could in a real naval engagement.
So how do you learn about tactics in this game? Nelson notwithstanding, mostly through trial and error. But then, if you are excluded from genuine battles where everyone does their best to win because you're asked to pass in favour of higher-levelled players / better ships, and that the only port battles you can attend all happen to be lost causes (if your own side bothers showing up to begin with), it is nearly impossible to see or learn a thing.
Which brings us back not only to the casual-versus-gamer debate, but also to the question of grinding, the dullness of it, and the absolute necessity of it for most players to be able not only to afford those more expensive ships but also to keep up a busy PvP schedule.
In January 2006, Isildur wrote:
In WoW, I solo-ground my way up to 25, and looked at the next 35 levels, saw nothing that suggested they’d be any different than the last 25, and I stopped....
I hear people at work talk about their latest level 60 adventures.... I talk to people who assume that anyone playing WoW is playing at level 60. And I ask myself: Why is anything that sounds even remotely interesting in any game always locked behind arbitrary dull activities? Why is ‘max out your character and *then* have fun’ the recurring design in MMO-space? WoW didn’t do anything different; they just shortened the distance between start and max....
I like Puzzle Pirates. In Puzzle Pirates, I participated in a blockade — arguably the Y!PP endgame — on my second day. In Puzzle Pirates, I’ve been playing a month and I own a ship, and me and my crew sail around pillaging. This seems like a far superior design to anything else I’ve played, simply because I was doing ‘the fun stuff’ on day two
I don’t think there’s an easy way to apply the clever and bizarre Y!PP design to the standard level-up-and-kill-shit MMO model. Nevertheless, I think it’s better to acknowledge that the ‘play for months and then you can play the *real* game’ is a stupid design. At least make an attempt to give people the ‘real’ game as soon as you can get their fingers onto the right buttons."
http://brokentoys.org/2006/01/30/casual-friday/
Yes, let us talk about the blockades of Puzzle Pirates, a game I played last year (I semi-retired around November), which I must admit is far more complex than its artistic choices will let on, and with probably the most mature community I have ever encountered in a MMO game. It is true that the PP community gets vastly involved in blockades when they take place (there is usually one every weekend between an NPC attacker and a player flag defender) and that they have become key events in the game because of their scope. Most people who participate in them do not even have a direct stake in the political matters at hand; they take part, if nothing else, for the money being offered by the various sides in the blockade. Sometimes bidding wars for jobbers raise wages into extremely lucrative territory for those who attend, which may explain that while they go on, the number of pillages (NPC grinding trips for money), which have to rely on the same pool of jobbers but incapable of offering guaranteed income unless the skipper wants to pay them, dwindles to almost none. Just consider that a War Brig alone includes 22 stations, and a War Frigate 55, meaning that in a full-blown blockade, especially between two player flags, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of openings for people to take part.
But what you cannot do on Day Two in Puzzle Pirates is battle-navigate a ship in a blockade, as to do so you would not only need to join a crew part of a flag (sort of what a society is to a nation here, except that flags are player-run and therefore able to set policy) either attacking or defending an island (the equivalent of towns in PotBS, except player-run in many cases), but to also be promoted to at least officer in the crew. And those crews for which political considerations are a vital part of the game are very nitpicky about whom they choose to promote. In many cases they will demand a certain level of skill in battle navigation (and sometimes in all the major ship-based puzzles -- bilging, carpentry, sailing and especially gunning) as well as spending several weeks in the crew before they will ever consider you for promotion. In the worst cases the crews were cliques that never recruited and preferred to use their wealth (generated by a fleet of foraging alts) to hire mercenaries.
There is much elitism in Puzzle Pirates, though it takes place in more subtle forms than on PotBS. For starters, because better ratings on a puzzle by the entire crew means more loot in battle, there are those "elite pillages", though ironically the mention of the word "elite" usually meant "wannabe" more than anything else to anyone in the know -- the true "elite" would never use the word, as everyone knew the names of the best battle navigators on the ocean, and to be invited by them on their pillage was a great honour. Likewise, people quickly developed networks of reliable jobbers.
All of this to say that Puzzle Pirates included an element of elitism set up much like a caste system, but it did not prevent you from taking part in most of its activities. Furthermore, the elitism was almost entirely skill-based as opposed to level- or wealth-based. To own a ship, you needed officer status in a crew, but you had no problem finding crews with low promotion standards.
But in PotBS, the port battles can only accommodate 48 players in all, out of who knows how many people logged in at any given time. So only 48 players can get to take part in the endgame at the same time, a limitation which has repercussions even outside the battle itself. Because frankly, answer this: If I am to be told to stay out of the port battle anyway because I'm too low-levelled or because my vessel isn't a lineship, why should I bother helping out in red circles to create (or reduce) unrest, when all I am really doing is risk my ship and damage my reputation for nothing in return? So the urge for me to act selfishly -- especially if I have no production in or do no trade with the port affected -- is very great indeed. Let someone else risk his ship if in the end I don't get to take part. It's not like I love red circles anyway.
But as I said before, I understand that the port battle is the closest one gets to an end-game in Pirates of the Burning Sea, and therefore a privilege normally reserved for high-ranking players with the better ships. I don't like it, but there is nothing I can do about it. I also understand that historically the port battle has been the purview of Naval Officers; hence it is normal that their skills serve them best (as opposed to freetraders and privateers) in such a context. However, the problem is that, in the current game, the port battle is the [i]only[/i] end game.
Roleplaying!: And I don't mean Bonny-style role-playing, in which your wife's brother's death at the hands of pirates twenty years ago is the motivation for leading a ganksquad around Ruddy Cove 24/7; I mean, to bridge this with the previous section, something even more basic: the ability to play the class we picked at the beginning as said class would normally behave. Naval Officers pursue pirates and foreign nationals because it is their duty. Privateers do so because of the lure of money. Freetraders do neither; they engage in a fight only when it is inevitable, and their prime objective is getting away. While the gameplay of Pirates of the Burning Sea (and its emphasis on PvP and even PvE missions) might perfectly fit the descriptions of the two first classes, for the third to willingly engage in PvP or PvE defies logic, no matter how well the Freetrader skills in PotBS can be used in such a context. But then there is nothing else to do, and even other classes get roughly the same production and trade advantages as Freetraders. The only distinct advantage of the Freetrader is the ability to use larger shipyards; advanced structures are useless in a political climate where ports with rivers are always disputed (and so far away from trading centres, on the French side at least, that distance is a major hurdle) and a saturated economic market. Furthermore, most of the Freetrader's best features -- access to the Bermuda Trader's Sloop, Trade Connections, etc. -- are all available by level 16. No wonder the Freetrader has been relegated to alt status by many players, even though some would agree it possesses some very good points in battle.
There is a thread in the Economy section of the PotBS forums with the title "Economic Players -- Let's talk about PvP" (does "Sommeliers -- Let's talk about pastry-making" make sense?), which basically summarizes what it is that PotBS has in store for trader types: No salvation outside of PvP, or else pay. This was annoying enough before the patch, but now that Marks of Victory and Marks of Trade have been added into the game the Freetraders have clearly been told, go PvP, or buy them off the market as a way to return some of our stash to the economy. Now to be honest, as a non-PvPer I never had many Marks of Victory in my possession, even when you could still receive them for turning in unrest bundles. A guildmate basically took all his bundles and dropped them in West End just hours before the patch to take advantage; I had no intention of doing the same. But now that the Marks of Victory are basically reserved for PvP activity, non-PvPing Freetraders are basically expected to buy them off the market if they need them, basically filling the pockets of those who PvP. And because a double whammy is better, let's add Marks of Trade, so that PvPers can bypass the market to buy some of their goods! Or rather, what concerns me with Marks of Trade is not so much that they will obtain goods from outside the market, but that they will trade in their MoT's for goods which they will then dump on the market, thereby increasing our competition.
As Isildur wrote in an entry last month:
The ongoing goal with this change is to move doubloons from economic players to PvP players. Right now, economic players are essentially a doubloon trap. Collectively, you’re accumulating more money than you’re spending. This means that while the overall currency supply in the game is growing, that growth is concentrated in only a few hands. As more money enters the game, it circulates around until it finally reaches a rest state somewhere in the economy, at which point it stops. This is the worst of both worlds: it’s inflation because the currency supply is rising, and it’s depression because the active currency supply is falling, or staying the same.
http://www.burningsea.com/page/news/article&article_id=10746
Doubloon trap, really? So we hoard the money and take it out of the economy? Perhaps some freetraders behave in such a fashion, but they'd have to be content to take a look at their bank balance every morning, because apart from buying more expensive ships, they have nothing to blow their money on, and no way to display their wealth. What annoys me most in that comment, however, is the assumption that Freetraders are not doing their bit in the larger war effort (such as financing lineships they in all likelihood cannot sail themselves). More on this last point later. And all that is really achieved is to send the money around more circles, but they will always end up with the economic players (whether they are Freetraders or other classes). Even with the blow given to traders by Marks of Trade, PvP players (except those buying from inside their societies, against which nothing can really be done) will still need to buy from the market.
Isildur is right in that individuals who are exclusively trading do not create wealth of any kind, as the only entry point for money is through grinding. If players spent actual game time crafting items, then they would grind in their fashion, and in the end the exchange would be between the NPC-ship grinder and the crafting grinder. Here the trader/crafter wastes nothing (except money) by producing goods, and can in fact go grinding at the same time and face no penalty. And indeed an academic pointed out this very fact: http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2008/05/the-cookie-mons.html . Hence if traders are indeed a "doubloon trap", it is no fault of the players themselves but as a result of the developers' decisions in this regard. There are a few things I could suggest -- such as turning structure labour into a general pool which could be allotted by players between the various structures they own to maximize their production -- but such changes to the economy are minor considerations in light of the more glaring problems in the game at this time, such as the larger political aspect.
The second part will deal with map victories, underdog tools, plans for port governance, etc.
Comments
I dunno if you knew this or not but the whole no crying in the red circle thing is a pun on a old Tom Hanks movie. It was just a joke because it relates to the game they were developing. I think there is a better way to go about pvp other than a red circle. I think that at level 30 you should be given a option to sail with your nations flags and that would be the only way to generate contention and participate in battles. HOwever you wouldn't be able to remove this flag.
"A League of their Own", to be exact. The problem is that if it's a joke, let's say the developers have been quick to embrace it. I agree with you, the red circle is patent silliness, and I'm planning to discuss this in Part 2.
Vetarnias,
I have been watching this game for some time. I have always found your posts both here and on the main forums to be among the most well reasoned and least inflammatory. That said, even though I am not a player I do have some thoughts.
First I am one of the potential customers FLS lost because of 'No Crying in the Red Circle'. There are times I like to PVP, but generally I am a PVE player. When I am PVEing I do not want to be 'ganked', interfered with, delayed, or inconvenienced by PVP in any way. This is generally how a lot of PVE players feel.
I think they should have had PVP servers where one is always flagged against any faction with which your faction (nation) is at war. A mechanic should have been developed which would allow nations to 'not' always be at war with each other. Player actions would cause wars to start and stop under certain conditions.
There should also have been PVE servers. These servers would have some PVP but that would be limited to Port Battles or other fully consentual engagements.
Economic variables on these server types would need to be balanced differently, to say the least, but it would be doable.
Just my thoughts.
When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader.
-- Plato
In response to the first quoted paragraph: PvP players will use a similar argument for complaining that they cannot attack players outside of red circles. Except that the relationship is always that of aggressor to victim, so what they are complaining about is players refusing to play the victim. Another argument they use is that they are forced to do PvE content (grinding) to be able to afford what they want to do (PvP). I think they need to be reminded that Shadowbane ("play to crush") was/is notoriously PvE grind-heavy (for city and equipment maintenance instead of ships), and that nobody could really accuse that game of being "carebear".
In response to the second quoted paragraph: To achieve this, the nations would need to be meaningful, and someone would need to be able to assert leadership. At this point, there are some "leaders" in each nation, but they cannot speak for all its members. Even their own societies (apart from deciding where to fight and when; if they are large enough they could dictate policy by just refusing to show up at a port battle, but it would just lead to squabbling and a rather self-defeating policy) are essentially powerless outside of the economic field. If societies are toothless, you can imagine nations themselves. Actually, I am planning to write precisely about that in Part 2: Less Sun Tzu (they're really name-dropping him), more Clausewitz. At the same time, I both welcome and fear the idea of player-run ports, but that's also something I am planning to write about. Let's just say it's worrisome that the idea has been included as a sink, and not as a source of revenue (well, income redistribution), in a game with apparently so many cash-strapped players.
Third paragraph: I agree, but my guess is that such a server would also be dullsville with the current level of interaction with the environment the game permits. The economy would need to be reworked, as you said. In fact I wouldn't say no to a sort of automated demand system (à la Port Royale, if you will) in addition to the player-driven economy. And you are right in pointing out that the port battle is the only truly consensual form of PvP in the game at this stage.
In response to the first quoted paragraph: PvP players will use a similar argument for complaining that they cannot attack players outside of red circles. Except that the relationship is always that of aggressor to victim, so what they are complaining about is players refusing to play the victim. Another argument they use is that they are forced to do PvE content (grinding) to be able to afford what they want to do (PvP). I think they need to be reminded that Shadowbane ("play to crush") was/is notoriously PvE grind-heavy (for city and equipment maintenance instead of ships), and that nobody could really accuse that game of being "carebear".
I do feel sympathy for the PVPers. It is amazing to me that FLS seems to have created a game, perfectly balanced to ensure that neither PVE or PVP players are happy.
In response to the second quoted paragraph: To achieve this, the nations would need to be meaningful, and someone would need to be able to assert leadership. At this point, there are some "leaders" in each nation, but they cannot speak for all its members. Even their own societies (apart from deciding where to fight and when; if they are large enough they could dictate policy by just refusing to show up at a port battle, but it would just lead to squabbling and a rather self-defeating policy) are essentially powerless outside of the economic field. If societies are toothless, you can imagine nations themselves. Actually, I am planning to write precisely about that in Part 2: Less Sun Tzu (they're really name-dropping him), more Clausewitz. At the same time, I both welcome and fear the idea of player-run ports, but that's also something I am planning to write about. Let's just say it's worrisome that the idea has been included as a sink, and not as a source of revenue (well, income redistribution), in a game with apparently so many cash-strapped players.
True, given the limited (dwindling) resources available to the development team a complex diplomatic mechanic is probably 'Out of Scope'. I would also be concerned that the 'Player Run Ports' may end up doing more harm than good, but I await your comments on that.
Third paragraph: I agree, but my guess is that such a server would also be dullsville with the current level of interaction with the environment the game permits. The economy would need to be reworked, as you said. In fact I wouldn't say no to a sort of automated demand system (à la Port Royale, if you will) in addition to the player-driven economy. And you are right in pointing out that the port battle is the only truly consensual form of PvP in the game at this stage.
True, a PVE server can only be supported by a game that has an engaging environment.
I guess at this point, FLS should try to 'go with what they have', but rebalance it so that it is more appealing to both PVE and PVP players.
I eagerly await your future posts.
When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader.
-- Plato
Isildur created a great economy & then made it so that players create red circles so that they can screw up the economy by any unfair means.
What we didn't expect is the amount of bad taste players find these ganking tactics to be so the answer was to make it optional so that players can easily avoid red circles.
By creating this answer it became a no risk business so naturally the majority of players avoided red circles which leads to low ship loss or a crippled economy.
FLS wasted an enormous amount of time (& perhaps still are) looking at ways of why a fun feature will not work due to its possible bad effect on other parts of the game systems particularly the economy.
As a consequence they have tried to make Potbs appeal to everyone but landed up making a self defeating game that makes nobody completely happy.
FLS really need to get out of this self criticism mode by spending more time designing fun content & then adjust the economy to suit if necessary. Too much fun has been lost trying to protect the economy.
I do hope you are going to address the open sea (OS) 50 mile visability, and the "speed boats". Oh, heck , I'll start it....
You can see ships at a 50 mile distance, allowing you to vector in on them for the "big gank". That is why PvP occurs only in a red circle. Had FLS decided not to make a fantasy game, they would have kept visability down to between 3 and 5 miles, reduced OS speed, thus stretching the world, and allowing open PvP anywhere. If you were a Freetrader (FT) hauling cargo you would stand a pretty good chance away from the ports of not ever seeing another player. Thus, "contention", and "blockade" of ports comes into play. So does naval officer (NO) "patrol" of OS, either as a "man to man", or "zone" defense.
Back to visibilty, players can see a port at 100 miles.
So FLS goes through all kinds of gyrations to keep the visibility, then creates stealth sails and speedboats for the gank contest. On one hand they say they encourage PvP, on the other they introduce game mechanisms to restrict PvP. FLS wants it both ways. They protect both victims and gankers with a "red circle" and a combat instance. I say that these protect the ganker, because British gankers can travel across the map, enter French waters, and never be attacked by French warships outside the red circle. When they get a victim in the red circle, the French warships cannot enter the combat instance, so, no cavalry to the rescue.
In short, a very poorly thought out system, combined with dysfunctional developers that decide on a weekly (patch) basis whether they want to encourage PvP, or restrict PvP. The game was designed by checksheet...."WOW has Av Com, we need Av Com". "WOW has quests, we need quests". "WOW has PvE, we need PvE". "WOW has crafting, we need crafting". "WOW has magic spells, we need magic spells".
The game tries to be something for everyone, and winds up being nothing to no one. Once you play, you realize not only have you been there, and done that, but you've been there and done that better.
Vetarnias,
Well thought out and said - I will follow this one with interest.
This game was first brought to my attention about 3 years ago (maybe more) and I visited the Dev Forums at that time to see what the concept was.
At that time the plan was to have a wide ranging open sea (un-instanced) similar to the way the naval game works in WWIIoL. The distances (and the travel times) would have been huge (in comparison to what we have now).
I did not really follow the game closely and only really became involved a year ago.
On reading the design notes I discovered the "Travel Map" concept had been introduced.
I do see the reasons for that - cutting down travel times because of player boredom (impatience?) - but I also thought that it was inflexible and would lead to a host of other problems.
I gave my arguements in the pre-release forums
(this thread is one example - post 94 on)
http://archive.burningsea.com/forums/showthread.php?p=454425&highlight=relativity#post454425
Well, sadly I was more right than wrong.
Day/Night cycles?
Draft?
OS Weather?
None of these things can easily be made to work with the "travel map" in place.
And as for Vetarnias'es comments on the Elitism of port battles - that is something else that could be fixed if not for the travel map and short transit times.
IMHO the "travel map" is a killer and it's totally inflexible too. What's worse however is that without a fundimental redesign of the whole game FLS can't really do much about it.
Really, a redesign that fundimental is more akin to a whole new game?
I look forward to the next part of Vetarnias'es post, but sadly I think it is all pretty much an academic exercise now.
PS: Just found this thread too
http://archive.burningsea.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29368&page=6&highlight=instances
Start about post 89...
I wonder where GroverPete and Xandax are now?
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I like this idea a lot. if you want to participate and raise unrest then you must be flying the nations flag. Otherwise you can fly a private flag meaning no PvP.
I am still subscribed to this game but with AoC just coming out and with 3 other subs ongoing I will probably drop it. The game has a lot of potential but there is fundamental issue with it, which is its just too heavy on combat and nothing else. When I heard about PotBS I was really excited because I wanted to participate in PvP and port battles but being me I wanted to go exploring and make some really cool stuff. What I found was a pretty small map and if I didn't feel like PvP I had to take wide berths around red circles. Then if all the missions were in the red circle I had to either log and wait until it went down or try and run it. This kind of game needs exploration, crafting and RPG elements such as housing etc. Some of the missions I really enjoyed and the storyline kept me going but the game itself is just too focused on ship combat and even though it looks and feels great in battles its just not enough in today's MMO gaming world. Tabula Rasa has the same issues with crafting and greater RPG elements. People need diversity in a game and alternate hobbies when they don't feel like fighting. I even lasted 6 months on Vanguard with all its faults. However its crafting, craft missions and diplo kept me going.
I dont know how much they listened to beta testers. I know they didn't listen to me
I tested the freetrader builds and I kept saying the same thing that present players who play it say. Its a generic kind of class and there isn't a whole lot of point to playing one full time. I wanted to see them actualy be traders since they aren't good at any one thing and it never happened.
I spoke of the over instancing, lack of "stuff" for people to do while not sailing etc. I did get shouted down by some testers for saying the game was lacking in content outside of ship battles and over instanced. I also know that those that shouted at me appeared to have not bothered to purchase a copy of the game at release while I did lol.
Its possible they listened toa few but anytime you tried to say something critical it was construed as Negtavie and therefore bad and I should only compliment something even though I thought it was fundamentally wrong. When I did say something someone would come along and tell you to "stop whining" and say something positive. I know this happened with a few types and so now the game suffers because eventually you give up. I know that I sited what complaints I would see with regards to the concerns I had in relation to economy and the generic confusing feel around the class I took time to get to know. I know that I was told to shut up when I said something by a select few who mostly I dont think actualy purchased the release version. I know at release those complaints did appear and in abundance (actualy they started in the open beta.. but anyhow..). I know who said them and i know I wont ever forget that i was right
Real shame actually. I think any sailing game needs to have the element of mass exploration and the opportunity to get lost. Having the world mapped out so easily is not great for a 'new world' type game. Even now I think they could add this by having an 'EVE' type function. E.g. pirates would occasionally drop a map or piece of a map. Once you had all the pieces a cross could show on the map. Go there and you may come across a treasure fleet or land mission that grants special bonus, resources etc. I also think with the current world they could have expeditions that you can invest in and donate ships to. They go off and after a set time they either return with some, lots of treasure or not at all. Basically anything that can broaden the game.
Don't disagree with the crafting system so much but its a bit easy for an player to make anything. Freetraders really should have the cream of the crafting. As a Naval Officer I am building lots of gear and I feel a bit strange doing so....not something a NO should do really.
Dear Vetarnias, I have followed you entire long text, and I always have great respect towards ppl who take their time for long and detailled analysis of the game they care about. Having beein in the PotBS beta, without sounding too smartassed I hope, I cant say I am surpried at all!
Right away the PotBS team showed that had little idea of the central problems a game design like this would bring up, and as ever so often, the devs were silent to this and the fanbois yelled us down. Its disheartning to see, there are enough people like you who SEE that is the issue and SAY it, but it does not do a thing. It was so with PotBS, with Vanguard, with TR and IMO it will be so with AoC. I always thought after Vanguard devs learn that a product needs to be planned and thought through to succeed and not just toss some ideas together and hope it works, because it doesnt. Its bad planning by people who have no idea what dynamics evolve in a MMO.
I would have wished PotBS would have succeeded, but this kind of devs not listening and fanbois prevent any real insight is what I have seen too often. It never helps, unfortunately. Just for once I would like to see developers LISTEN and really, really react to what is going on.
I quote from Isildur I would love to give to the AoC people, but I leave it, since they wont listen as they didnt in VG and TR and anything else:
"The people who want to gank are waiting for the Next Big Failure to come along, to let them grief noobs for a few months before it shrivels up and dies. This is because every sane developer has learned this lesson: griefing and ganking doesn’t just lose you the $15/mo from the person who was griefed. It has a multiplicative effect, creating an environment in your game, and a reputation outside your game, and people tend to steer clear."
It is a key to understand, but alas too many are closed to understanding.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Potbs is at a crossroads a whole lot depends on which direction they now take.
Some of the planned content needs to be put on hold & some solid corrections made, after which a 14 day trial should bring back the numbers.
Casket has been lowered into grave and the bronze cover is being slowely placed into position. The 2 unshaven grave diggers are leaning on there shovels waiting to cover all.
MAGA
You know what the real irony of the situation is? The devs probably won't pay the slightest bit of attention to any of the complaints by me or others (even if they could come up with a remedy for the game's woes, which I doubt), but will instead pay heed to several comments made by the hardcore crowd, about how they can't wait to see every "carebear" driven from the game so they can enjoy the game their way.
You know, comments such as these:
=============================
Less QQ, more Pew Pew.
I'd rather play this game with the same 100 or so people then to dumb it down to another Trammel version of UO or another PvE Hello Kitty Online to attract "the masses".
This game is the cloest MMO to come close to the highs I got when I first played UO beta up until UO got carebeared with Trammel's release.
I hope FLS doesn't go down this road. I couldn't careless about class imbalances (I got all 4 maxed so I never get nerfed!). Nor do I care about other small bugs or what not. I just like the kill or be killed, dog eat dog gameplay. UO died when it started catering to the carebears.
If anything, the whiners will always whine and will eventually quit regardless. They will always look for some flaw to harp on or some bug to complain about.... and usually its because they suck at the game.
Let them complain and quit.
http://www.burningsea.com/forums/showpost.php?p=345212&postcount=22
=============================
Since we're up to our armpits in irony, might as well mention the supreme irony that if anyone succeeds in saving the game, it's likely to be a member of the otherwise universally reviled species of the "bean counter". He will be the one doing the number-crunching, and the first to realize that 100 times 15 does not even cover the rent. If he knows a modicum of things about gaming history, he will also know that games which supposedly died at a certain moment cannot be found still drawing in monthly subscriptions eight years later. When UO dies -- and I give it perhaps one year or two before that happens -- it will be because of outdated graphics, the Ripe Old Age of video games. Problem is that bean counters have very little imagination, and even less patience; hence they pull the plug on far more games than they save.
If we could just get the hardcore gamers to open their mouths more often, perhaps FLS will realize that the last thing that demographic cares about is the short- and long-term viability of a game.
If you keep at it they will gather a momemtum that will be hard to ignor, as they hit home with many truths.
Keep up the good work.
4 servers (not counting Australia here) all with light populations on all 4 nations.
What is the threshold for "moderate"? IIRC AgtSmith / SWBgHz established it was about 100 players?
So, we are looking at 4x4x100 players on line maximium at most times.
That's 1600 people and assume that is 10% of total subscribers (very generous) then they have 16000 subscribers left.
16000 x 15 x 12 = 2.9 million per annum.
Divide by $100000 per staff member (including overheads) which is again generous then they can only support about 28 staff at best.
Sadly DJXeon / GB, as well written as Vetarnias'es posts are the time to listen was pre-release.
But, those of us that tried were shouted down by a handfull of Fanbois who enjoyed tacit Mod support.
Threads were flamed and locked if we dared to question.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
"A League of their Own", to be exact. The problem is that if it's a joke, let's say the developers have been quick to embrace it. I agree with you, the red circle is patent silliness, and I'm planning to discuss this in Part 2.
I don't really care what its in reference to, because on some level it is meant to say waht it says. And what it says is inherently disrepectful and arrogant. And in the typical "I'm really hardcore" way of certain elements of the PvP crowd.Basically its says whatever happens no matter how stupid you have no input because unless you gush like a fanboy you are crying.
Its the the very element of this mindset that makes these sorts of games perpetually whistle past the graveyard. And never make any progress.
Its so sad. These people know these games are extremely unrealistic and yet are convinced that masochism somehow makes them hardcore and the PvP better and more "real". Yet conflict in the real world works nothing like what they advocate should happen. Its such a stupid and self-destructive mind-set. The scary thing about it is just how self reinforcing it is.
Here is something that might illustrate the problem. When a "hardcore" person sees that slogan they say "That'll show those weakass carebears". When a person such as myself who is actually quite tough in real life but is under no illusion that the PvP in most of these games is anywhere close to real or hard or hardercore sees that my response is "You think I am going to cry? I'll stuff that CD up your effing nether region and bitch slap you so hard you'll thank me for doing it."
Its a statement of complete disregard. Its a flashing warning sign that says "Anyone who does not belong to the extremely small crowd of gankfest evangelists is a crying little wuss who should never be listened to because we have it perfect."
At least "Play to Crush", no matter how ill-advised is a simple clear statement of intent. This is actually far worse. At least with that there is the possibility of convincing some one somewhere that some way of doing things is not actually "crushing" its just dumb or not working.
/agree 100% but the big difference now is that we are being proved right.
The handful of closed beta fanbois have gone quiet because they know they are a minority that is unlikely to be large enough to make Potbs commercially successful.
In short, they have lost the battle to keep out the majority & FLS have no option to change the game or fail in my opinion.
I am still signed up but I doubt I will keep it going more than another month. There are a few mission lines I would like to complete and get through but thats about it. The thing is i like PvP but I also love the option of avoiding it and feel like I can influence a game by non combat means. I love EVE for that reason, you can avoid PvP forever if you wanted to yet contribute to a war effort by several other means. The only way PotBS can keep my sub are:
* exploration in some form
* Larger map or additional maps
* melee combat needs mass improvement
* several other RPG enhancements
I would like to hit level 50 and try some group combat but it does get to a point where I think....whats the point...
They do have a good template to develop on but its current state isn't working for the mass population. What it caters to now is probably too low in subs to even call niche or will be too low in a month or two.
If and when they expand the world , add engaging and meaningful land based exploration, invent a system of PvP that retains both sides of the fence I will be back onboard as well.
For the record, I have just finished Part 2 and posted it here. I will post it here in its entirety shortly (because it's really painful to have to re-format the text).
Well I think your posts are pretty good, but the crowd you are talking about is a plague of locusts that goes from game to game and forum to forum and leaves nothing but barren ground behind.
They agitate for more crops (Gankfest PvP MMORPGs) shred them and then agitate some more. All the games that bow down to the agitation always fail. It was too late a long time ago. The same was true of EQ2 PvP.
These games are made to fail because they listen to these people and granted them a fundamental premise in their design.
Like a plague of locusts these people are caught in a perpetual negative feedback loop. The mechanics they support are painful and destructive, never constructive. The feedback loops are not regulated. Because the idea themselves poo poo the necessary regulations.
They are like drug addicts or any other unsustainable negative feedback loop whose regulation has gone out of whack. Or a wildfire perpetually crying out for new forests to be planted so it can burn it down and burn itself out.
Why is Eve different from these other games that fail? Because Eve is fundamentally Constructive. It has conflict and wars. But the whole point is to fight over the control of positive things that you work to create. You create alliances and bases and ships and defend all that.
Most people who do things like Karate or wrestling or boxing, they the one who are most concerned with the safety of those they fight against. Why? Because if they hurt everyone who spars with them they won't have anyone to spar with and get better.
These games are the exact opposite because they were intended and designed for use by a plague of locusts not real people. Sorry but its doomed.
I would like to expand on that and this is what I have come up with.
So going with what you have provided and of course this is all based on guesstimates and assumptions; but should provide a good ballpark figure.
4 Servers with 4 Nations with all Lights.
100 players is assumed max for Light Level.
4 x 4 x 100 = 1,600 concurrent users
The rule of thumb to use, is 20% or a 1:5 ratio of concurrent users to active subscribers.
So 1,600 / 0.05 = 32,000 active subscribers
Since SOE handles the billing, I'll say that SOE takes a 25% cut (10% for profit, 6% for credit card fees, and 9% overhead) for subscriptions. So the $15/mo rate turns to $11.25 for Flying Labs.
32,000 * 11.25 = $360,000/mo
Now take into account that some of the subscribers use the Station Pass, so that amount would be less. No information of how Station Passes work have been provided. Could be that a developer receives a straight percentage from every member or receives a percentage amount based on the amount of time the member spent for that particular game. For now, just going to assume that Station Members have no fiscal impact and everyone provides full price.
So for a year at a 32,000 subscriber base, not taking into effect of the churn rate or new members, provides $360,000 * 11 = $3,960,000.
Notice the 11 for months vice 12. Did this purposely to include the sales and an additional month purchased. The way this model works, is basically 65,000 people have bought the game in January paid for an extra month, and then dropped down to 32,000 for the remaining of the year. This does not take into account of additional clients bought throughout the year.
Now let's add in the number of clients sold. Let's assume that the 65,000 subscribers as reported by MMOGCHARTS is valid and as the number of new users, with one month purchased as well. For the revenue gained from the clients sold, let's just say for being generous, FLS takes a 50% cut. So at $50 per title, 65,000 * $50 * 0.5 = $1,625,000.
Add in the one extra month that those same 65,000 decided to re-up on (this is just an assumption); 65,000 * $11.25 = $731,250.
$1,625,000 + $731,250 = $2,356,250 from those sales.
This should (key word 'should') provide a very rough ballpark of:
$4,320,000 + $2,356,250 = $6,676,250 for the year.
So I'll guess at the best possibilities, that $8 to 9 million could be generated if the planets were aligned for prosperity.
But if the trend of decline in the retention of subscribers continues with lower sales of clients (increased churn rate), then I'll side with a $4 to $5 million revenue.
As of this time, PotBS in terms of subscriber performance is following the same as the majority of other games with not-so-good launches (opening spike, followed by a decline) and not of one with steady growth.
Conclude that PotBS will not be going to be out of the red in its first year.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
What a read!
Very well done and thought out.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.