Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Thor Ragnarock

Atlas needs more PVE content on PVPVE and PVE servers for the long term. Share ideas if you have any

Recommended Posts

- Add ships of an armada and be able to attack them, that the attack puts a price to your head and your company and that both npcs and players can go to collect the reward.

- Add kidnapping missions, take one alive objective and bring him to an island

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Vexus said:

PvP does not get boring at all ever; that's why it's such good content for games. All the top games are PvP games. Even WoW is very competitive inside it's PvE raiding schedule and arenas. The great thing about PvP is the developers can release content on their own schedule without being demanded to provide it. In other words, the PvP players are happy while the new content is developed, because their content comes mainly from fighting other players.

 

PvE players are not needed for the finance, because they don't spend money - they quit the game as soon as they've consumed it. This is one of the biggest problems I have with PC game developers, how they keep catering to PvE players as if they are selling a $60 copy of a AAA game that has 20 hours of gameplay in a single-player story mode and no multiplayer content. Console players and PvE players do not have thousands of hours in PvE games, they have 40-60 hours and then quit and move on to the next game to consume. This is great for consoles, where you sell a $60 game once a month to keep those PvE players buying the next game, but in an online muiltiplayer setting it makes no sense to cater to this kind of player, because they will leave the game and not invest in its future success.

 

The PvE players LOVE to CONSUME and then quit a game. They are NOT the target audience for online multiplayer gaming! PvE players do not buy your cosmetics and microtransactions moreso than the PvP players who want to look badass while they kill their enemies. There is ample evidence showing that PvP games with microtransactions far outperform PvE games with microtransactions, and it is such a shame to see any game developer for online multiplayer PC games trying to cater to a PvE crowd, when they should be trying to amass as many hardcore players as possible.

 

 

Thats alot of bs. All the big mmos like Guild Wars, WoW, SWtOR and so on habe much more pve players then pvp. The games with pure pvp like the most shooters dont last long. Look at Battlefield, CoD etc how often the get replaced.

 

and if pvp is so great then go there and play.

Pve needs more content. 

Since we paid for it to, we have the right to write our ideas too. I really dont care about pvp, tried it alot but the social behavoir is just to bad. 

Edited by Samstag Freitagsson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Samstag Freitagsson said:

Thats alot of bs. All the big mmos like Guild Wars, WoW, SWtOR and so on habe much more pve players then pvp. The games with pure pvp like the most shooters dont last long. Look at Battlefield, CoD etc how often the get replaced. 

They get replaced because the next better version of the same title comes out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ljbendele said:

They get replaced because the next better version of the same title comes 

ha ha . yeah. They move on, because it gets boring to quick! look at the games, longest in buisness, PvE! sorry dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vexus said:

You're completely right.

 

The devs need to spend a ton of time developing new PvE content to keep the PvE players happy. All the while, the PvP players create their own content and don't give a damn about new PvE content that isn't normally scheduled.

 

As such, the devs should shut down any official PvE servers and send everyone to a single official PvP gameplay server where if you want to make your ship and sail it around all peaceful-like, you have to join a large group who will protect you and give you some meaningful reason to exist in the game world.

 

Because otherwise you're completely right, they will need to cater to the never ending hunger that PvE players demand - more and more PvE scripted content that isn't 'boring and repetitive'; quests, dailies, more and more useless 'stuff' for you to 'do' because you can't handle loss in a PvP setting. As such, catering to PvE players is a waste of time unless it is monetized with DLC and so on, and they should just forget about official servers for PvE players and let those players find unofficial outlets for their PvE satisfaction where individual server admins can spawn in stuff and implement mods to keep the PvE players happy.

This demonstrates how low a bar we've set for game developers and how little imagination exists in the player base.

If the first thing that comes to mind for pve content in a sandbox game is "scripted content" you're already failing.

PvP players get game mechanics designed around pvp.  They use these mechanics, like warfare and company structures, to "create their own content".   PvP players are never really happy with what they get either.  They always want more protections or fewer protections or things balanced differently.  Things are never balanced either ,so there's a never ending hunger for THOSE changes.

Pve players don't even get mechanics.  Most games make a pve server the afterthought.  They remove the pvp bit and add no mechanics for pve. If pve had the same amount of underlying mechanics as pvp, those players would also "create their own content" especially in a sandbox.   If a developer puts as much time and thought into systems for economics, politics, and trade as they do into warfare, alliances, and pvp rewards, they'd find that not only have they given the pve players limitless things to do, but that the pvp players can use those as well, and make their game much more than pew pew.

Oh, and the pve players I know are not playing pve because they can't handle loss.  In fact, they'd love something to fight for.  What they can't handle is the toxic environment of today's pvp games, the demands that some pvp games make that are over and above what working adults can give, the constant arguments between pvpers about who killed who and why and the inevitable d^*k waving that follows.  The mind-numbing idiotic lack of reasoning behind the conflict, with nothing more than "I'm a pirate so I kill everybody".  Not fun.  Not our thing.

So if you want to talk about pve players and pve content,  a better knowledge of the subject and a hell of a lot more imagination would help.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

What they can't handle is the toxic environment of today's pvp games, the demands that some pvp games make that are over and above what working adults can give

Very much this.

ATLAS chooses to make itself unfriendly to small groups of players with limited time; while offline everything you have built and own can and will be destroyed on PvP and you land taken, and the time invested into building anything is considerable. if you only have 2-4 hours after work every day in which to play, it could take you and your friends days to build a small ship, or reasonable base of operation and have it be gone by the next morning. If I were to play almost anything else; from Anthem to Factorio to Overwatch to Elder Scrolls Online to No Man's Sky, I could walk away and feel like I made some sort of progress, that I got both entertainment value and I have gained progress towards something more. in ATLAS your progress is ephemeral, cut down randomly, often while you're not even there to defend it.

It doesn't have to be this way, this is a conscious decision on the part of the devs. Take Archeage for example, another high-seas-heavy sandbox; in that you can 'summon' your ship freely, and unsummon it when not in use, while the map going through a fixed cycle of peace and war, you can lose your land to PvP, and take other peoples. But it doesn't happen 'whenever they please' but at a fixed time every week where the PvP-claim region descends into company alliance warfare.

I'm honestly not sure whether to chalk this up to incompetence, or malice; whether it simply never occured to Grapeshit that there was another way, or whether they knew they'd be creating a skinner box, in which players would be compelled to keep logging in, pulling their levers, simply to avoid the inevitable punishment.

This is why me and my company stopped playing official, put simply, ATLAS is not a game that respects your time or you.

Edited by RyuujinZERO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Winter Thorne said:

Oh, and the pve players I know are not playing pve because they can't handle loss.  In fact, they'd love something to fight for.  What they can't handle is the toxic environment of today's pvp games, the demands that some pvp games make that are over and above what working adults can give, the constant arguments between pvpers about who killed who and why and the inevitable d^*k waving that follows.  The mind-numbing idiotic lack of reasoning behind the conflict, with nothing more than "I'm a pirate so I kill everybody".  Not fun.  Not our thing.

First regarding PvP players not being happy - this is provably wrong. CS:GO for example has had almost no change in years, and is still a top PvP game. League of Legends gives players a new hero every now and then. Same with other MOBAs. Those games also boast the exact same map for absolute years on end. Starcraft2 has different maps, but very few new units, and is a top PvP game. Rust gives its users a bunch of new content each month, along with trying out a bunch of new mechanics, and has found that to work, but the core gameplay is still the PvP raiding your enemies, and it's constantly worked.

The PvP players are generally happy with the game given to them - it is not those players demanding change or balance. Devs are the driver behind finding balance - they see issues with gameplay that they did not want and move to correct it. The people playing the game had little input to that decision.

And to your quote: you proved my point. You cannot handle loss, and cannot dare fight other players. The whole reason you think there is a 'toxic environment' is because the PvP players are beating you over the head so you will quit and go to PvE - they're winning so hard, they make you leave the server and go play somewhere 'safer'. They've literally PvP'd you out of existence. That, to me, is absolutely hilarious. And something I will have to remember when talking to PvE players in the future. You've been destroyed so hard you literally make up an excuse that people are 'toxic' so you don't have to engage with them in a skill vs. skill environment. I love it!

The fact that you expect PvP to be some roleplaying, "Arr, I challenge yee to a duel," is great! You want this fairness that does not exist, and all the PvP players can see deep into your soul that you cannot handle a 'toxic environment' so they use that as a tool to PvP you - and they're winning. They will continue to be 'toxic' as long as that gets them what they want - you losing. It is working, and you've lost the mind game. Which means you're not even competition, you're literally no threat at all.

PvE players don't want something to fight for, they want an easy win. To kill a Ship of the Damned and say they did something useful that day. You could easily carve out a PvE existence among the PvP servers, working with large groups which provide you safety, but the simple small risk that you might lose something some day is why you go to PvE. You cannot handle loss, period. You cannot wave your "d**k" around, because no one would notice. You cannot see the reasoning behind the conflict, because you're a push over who when faced with aggression shrinks away from it rather than tackling it head on.

 

If you think I'm wrong I will challenge you to this: describe an unscripted/unplanned PvP scenario which a PvE player would enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RyuujinZERO said:

This is why me and my company stopped playing official, put simply, ATLAS is not a game that respects your time or you.

So the PvPers are winning so hard they made you quit the game. This is, interestingly enough, one of the main goals of every PvP survival game - to get your enemy to quit the game (for the wipe, like Rust does). That's a huge win.

I do understand that when faced with the difficulty of grouping with a large alliance and living in the middle of their territory where almost no one ever bothers you, you prefer to go to a safe server with little to no conflict whatsoever (or perhaps, more structured). It really is the lack of ability in handling loss - as you've stated. You cannot handle logging on and seeing that you spent 6 hours building something, and someone else spent 6 hours destroying the things you've built. There was equal time investment, but you cannot handle that nor mount the time or ability to fight back.

I think structured PvP is probably what you want; pre-determined fights, everyone on 'equal' footing. If you have a 'brig fight' you'd be mad if someone brought a galleon. I get it. But there are a plethora of games available like that. Sea of Thieves seems right up your alley. The next patch should bring some structured elements to the game, but overall it will just be hours of people PvPing you during your island's warlike status and the same people that couldn't handle the current ruleset will not be able to handle that much more lenient ruleset either.

There are tons of games that give you structured PvP - the mentality of trying to corrupt PvP games to make them more PvE is really bad, and that's why I'm combating this mindset here. Leave the very few PvP games alone with your (not personal) desire to make them more casual. Let the very few hardcore games exist for those who want it. If you have the option (again not personal) then go to the unofficial servers to find your outlet for less brutal PvP. You have the option. Trying to change the base game to suit your (not personal) whims is arrogant and wrong.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Vexus said:

If you think I'm wrong I will challenge you to this: describe an unscripted/unplanned PvP scenario which a PvE player would enjoy.

By definition would a PvE player not naturally be unhappy being in PvP at all? 😛

However, I'll give it a shot. My friends can certainly attest, i have a HUGE hangup with PvP, i will go to huge lengths to avoid it, there have however over the years been a few scenarios in which I was ok with PvP:

1) Ultra-large scale, tactics driven PvP: WvWvW in Guild Wars 2, Auroria in Archeage for example. This isn't PvP for PvP's sake, it isn't 'some guy getting his jollies trying to kill me', it's a war with a goal and I'm just a cog in that, and, apparently I'm ok with that. My dislike of PvP it seems largely comes down to an aversion of being part of someone else's dominance fetish.

2) PvPvE. ie. Asee-teph in Allods Online: For context this was a zone in a less played MMO, in which the player is essentially an officer in a larger force for their faction. Their goals are primarily PvE related, capturing locations with the assistance of an NPC force, moving the battle lines in the process. But other players are trying to carry out opposing goals to advance their lines. The combination of narrative, atmosphere and gameplay made this palatable to me, despite the small-scale PvP nature of it. Soldiers at war, not psychopaths rubbing one out over their opponents corpse.

3) Crew-level, personal goal based combat: ie. Star Citizen, Archeage, Allods Online: These encounters are way less structured and yet oddly, perfectly parallel what ATLAS should and could be; fleets of large ships with multiple crew-members, working together to carry out a goal; whether trading, piracy, escort. In Archeage I actually tended to serve on a combat escort ship! - Our ship was the one actively engaging in PvP on behalf of the convoy. This begs the question: Why does ATLAS PvP bother me then?

Simply because not once did we ever end up in a scenario like that IN ATLAS. Every 'PvP encounter' we lost, was not 'my defeat at the hands of my better', it was someone taking a pick to the bottom of my boat at 3am!

And don't try tell me it took my enemies 6 hours to destroy 6 hours of work, we both know that's total bollocks, a galleon can be defeated by a guy uninterrupted with patience and a bundle of flame arrows; or, it could, i dunno if that meta is still active

 

 

Edited by RyuujinZERO
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

So the PvPers are winning so hard they made you quit the game. This is, interestingly enough, one of the main goals of every PvP survival game - to get your enemy to quit the game (for the wipe, like Rust does). That's a huge win.

And this is the mind-set that is destroying the game. 

People like you need people to fight. I know plenty of people with this mentality who no longer play simply because their servers became ghost towns. 

Do not confuse people who only play PvE with people who play PvE because of time constraints. There are many of us who want nothing more than to play the game as often as we can and participate in the PvP elements as often as possible. But real life commitments come first.  Kids, jobs, that sort of thing. 

With the current design, those people stand no chance of keeping up unless they join a massive tribe which is honestly not an experience many people are attracted to. 

I for one have zero desire for structured PvP. I want to play in a world that looks and feels like a pirate world though. I want to build within the safety of a colony and have the freedom to take to the seas seeking glory and riches knowing full well that the open water is treacherous. This is how it was in real life btw... 

This is why the game needs to be re-designed. It needs to provide a place for all demographics of people. It needs to combine the safety of a PvE world with the dangers of a PvP world with enticements and game design elements drawing people as far away from safety as possible. 

This way you cater to everyone. And the PvP players therefore get a lot more juicy targets. 

Edited by Sklex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Samstag Freitagsson said:

ha ha . yeah. They move on, because it gets boring to quick! look at the games, longest in buisness, PvE! sorry dude

dude, please dont just make up facts that dont exist. pve and pvp both have thier place in gaming with thier respective playerbases. What i dont understand is when players read a description for a game like Atlas being open world pvp and then complain that it doesnt have enough pve for them. I consider myself a pvp player and understand even most pvp games have player progression gated behind some kind of pve elements. But it gets rediculous for pve players to start thinking they are entitled to whatever they want in pvp games. Atlas has some cool pve elements such as the building, be happy with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Vexus said:

 

And to your quote: you proved my point. You cannot handle loss, and cannot dare fight other players. The whole reason you think there is a 'toxic environment' is because the PvP players are beating you over the head so you will quit and go to PvE - they're winning so hard, they make you leave the server and go play somewhere 'safer'. 

Well, based on your answer you probably won't understand any of this, but for the edification of others:

You're joking, right?  I've played pvp games.  I've won, I've lost, I've had the snot beat out of me, and  I've had fun.  It's got nothing to do with that.   Let's say it's Friday, and I'm glad it's Friday, and I'm going over to my favorite pub/restaurant for dinner.  There's usually a good crowd at the bar and people come in to have a drink and just shoot the breeze there.  So I walk in the door and the place is full of 16 year old boys,  pointing their fingers at everyone and going "pew pew" yelling racist and homophobic crap, and nasty stuff at any woman who walks by.    When they run out of that they tell poop jokes and try to find rhymes for penis .  There's no way I'm spending my hard-earned Friday night like that.  I turn to go out the door and as I do, some drooling goober points his finger at me and yells, "Pew pew".

You think I left because "they are beating me over the head" and "I can't take loss".  You think they are "winning so hard" at something.   Funny, that's what the drooling goobers think too.   I think I just don't like spending my free time with juvenile dimwits.  

1 hour ago, Vexus said:

The fact that you expect PvP to be some roleplaying, "Arr, I challenge yee to a duel," is great! 

And with this you show that you have no understanding of role play in 2019...at all.

What about some guy who just loves the part of the game that has to do with ships and wants to be the best shipbuilder on the server?  Except he can't, because in a game about ships and sailing, there's only 3 levels of shipbuilding, almost everyone can do them and everybody gets the same results.  Just wanting to be the best shipbuilder on the server is roleplaying.  The mechanics aren't there for it.  It would be a better game if they were.

1 hour ago, Vexus said:

If you think I'm wrong I will challenge you to this: describe an unscripted/unplanned PvP scenario which a PvE player would enjoy.

If you had understood anything I said, you would have challenged me to describe how adding pve mechanics to pvp would make a better game for the pvpers as well.  The challenge you issued makes no sense in the context of my comment.  No matter what scenario I come up with, I would not be happy running through it in a room full of drooling goobers who are "winning so hard..pew pew".

So in the end...nevermind.  If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still voting for a marriage and breeding with other players system.. Being able to raise your replacement would be much better than the foy death run or buying babies from some shady black market..  I also stand with my thought that it would add alot to the game as far as alliances go. Breeding babies could pull stats from both parents like dinos from ark did and you could just keep breeding your replacement and sooner or later come out with one badass baby to have replace you.. I think that would be great.. Have them grow until 18 then they stop aging until you're ready to die.. 😄

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do have plans for more PVE content in the game; from dungeons, quests, missions, the list goes on but right now our focus is on this upcoming mega update and tackling some of our core design problems.

However there are some really good ideas in here, keep them coming folks 🙂

 

  • Thanks 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jatheish said:

We do have plans for more PVE content in the game; from dungeons, quests, missions, the list goes on but right now our focus is on this upcoming mega update and tackling some of our core design problems. 

However there are some really good ideas in here, keep them coming folks 🙂

 

And free beer...:classic_rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see PVE content along the lines of instanced dungeons.

Think of the scene in Pirates when the Black Pearl first shows up, first they fire upon it before going in and raiding it.

I.E.

Raiding a port:

You cross into an instanced area, only company or allied ships may zone in together.

Start out by facing a ship or to in the surrounding waters in naval combat.

After sinking them you need to "soften up the port" before entering. This consists of bombarding the towns fortifications and taking out their cannon emplacements.

Once done you make landfall and proceed to fight your way through milita / town guards, whatever you want to call them, and work your way to the governors mansion where if you beat the final boss, you gain the keys to the city and are free to run around and loot.

The town would be manned by NPCs and scale to the amount of people doing it. For the solo player, they can bring NPC crew with them to help.

How fun would it be to actually raid and pillage a port in a pirate game?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, RogueLdr said:

I would like to see PVE content along the lines of instanced dungeons.

Think of the scene in Pirates when the Black Pearl first shows up, first they fire upon it before going in and raiding it.

I.E.

Raiding a port:

You cross into an instanced area, only company or allied ships may zone in together.

Start out by facing a ship or to in the surrounding waters in naval combat.

After sinking them you need to "soften up the port" before entering. This consists of bombarding the towns fortifications and taking out their cannon emplacements.

Once done you make landfall and proceed to fight your way through milita / town guards, whatever you want to call them, and work your way to the governors mansion where if you beat the final boss, you gain the keys to the city and are free to run around and loot.

The town would be manned by NPCs and scale to the amount of people doing it. For the solo player, they can bring NPC crew with them to help.

How fun would it be to actually raid and pillage a port in a pirate game?

If done right, tons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RogueLdr said:

I would like to see PVE content along the lines of instanced dungeons.

Think of the scene in Pirates when the Black Pearl first shows up, first they fire upon it before going in and raiding it.

I.E.

Raiding a port:

You cross into an instanced area, only company or allied ships may zone in together.

Start out by facing a ship or to in the surrounding waters in naval combat.

After sinking them you need to "soften up the port" before entering. This consists of bombarding the towns fortifications and taking out their cannon emplacements.

Once done you make landfall and proceed to fight your way through milita / town guards, whatever you want to call them, and work your way to the governors mansion where if you beat the final boss, you gain the keys to the city and are free to run around and loot.

The town would be manned by NPCs and scale to the amount of people doing it. For the solo player, they can bring NPC crew with them to help.

How fun would it be to actually raid and pillage a port in a pirate game?

Can you imagine if there were NPC ports that had an accumulating "wealth" that was generated on top of the construction of the town due to trading etc so if you go in and level the town and take their gold then the gold only starts to build up once they have rebuilt their town and people start using it again for trading.

As a pirate you have a choice between,

Sneaking in and thieving without causing damage or death causing almost no significant delay to their wealth gathering.

Taking out the fleet with your ships but doing minimal damage to structure by going in on foot and kicking down doors and killing or bola trapping the people doing some quickly recoverable damage and delay to wealth generation.

Levelling the town from the sea with massive damage and carnage causing a huge delay to wealth generation for that port.

This gives a variety of choices for the players styles of gaming, if the port was close you would want to preserve it so that you could periodically "prune" it's wealth but if it was miles away you wouldn't care because you weren't likely to sail that way again for weeks so you would just level it and move on to the next town.
Each action could have different reputation points to go with it that could be reflected in NPC naval actions such as sink on sight and auto attack when you enter an NPC port.

Could add a tone of life to the game.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What if the game had factions implemented. A lot of other MMOs and other games have used the system to great effect and I think Atlas may be a perfect place for it. 

When people create their characters they're prompted to choose a faction to join. There could be several different factions and each one could have their own unique structure and ship aesthetics, and you could even go so far as to give each faction their own benefits. 

For example, you could have a faction described as warring nomads that get increased weapon damage and ship speed but increased structure cost and upkeep. A faction described as being great builders could get cheaper stone structures and upkeep but lower seafaring abilities. A neutral Merchant's Guild faction could have reduced upkeep and could build on any faction's land and set up player shops outside of Freeports but could never own their own land. The pirate faction could get higher gold gains, be better at ship to ship combat and sail faster but could only build in lawless areas. 

The factions and pros/cons of each can be different, I'm just using those as examples. But several different factions could exist and islands could be claimed for that faction rather than individual companies within those factions. 

Then we can have elections once a month to choose a governor. The original governor of the island would be whichever company put the claim down first, then the company can assign a duke/duchess for each island they own. Everyone could choose to be a citizen of one island at a time, they can change their citizenship at any time but only people that are citizens of the island for at least three weeks could vote in the next election. The governor would get the benefit of taxes but would be tasked with essentially being the admin of that island. 

For PvP servers could do the same thing but if another faction takes control of the island the residents could choose to either assimilate into their faction or pack up and leave. Basically, join us or die.

I would see such a system opening up a lot of trade to get different aesthetics for building parts, everyone would have a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves while still being able to do their own thing or play solo if they wanted to. That's a good thing as it helps distance the game more from ARK and its mentality.

Large companies could build their empires, and small companies and solo players would have their places as well and the system would hopefully be able to manage itself. 

It would also open up the door for a lot more types of content, such as faction missions, NPC towns for each faction, wars in PvP would be bigger, more drawn-out and more organized, and people would have a reason to have alt accounts in different factions so Grapeshot would benefit from the extra revenue in exchange for the amount of time and effort such a system would take to build.

Edited by Kidori
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kidori said:

What if the game had factions implemented.

I feel that this is more of a "towards the end of EA" thing, get the core of the game and things like economy working even the AI for travelling ships working properly before we join factions that have functional towns/navies etc.
But it would be nice, even if you have to earn your place in the faction and we all start out as neutral to all factions having to perform tasks or play in a certain way to earn points with that faction rather than just picking at creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vexus said:

PvP does not get boring at all ever; that's why it's such good content for games. All the top games are PvP games. Even WoW is very competitive inside it's PvE raiding schedule and arenas. The great thing about PvP is the developers can release content on their own schedule without being demanded to provide it. In other words, the PvP players are happy while the new content is developed, because their content comes mainly from fighting other players.

 

PvE players are not needed for the finance, because they don't spend money - they quit the game as soon as they've consumed it. This is one of the biggest problems I have with PC game developers, how they keep catering to PvE players as if they are selling a $60 copy of a AAA game that has 20 hours of gameplay in a single-player story mode and no multiplayer content. Console players and PvE players do not have thousands of hours in PvE games, they have 40-60 hours and then quit and move on to the next game to consume. This is great for consoles, where you sell a $60 game once a month to keep those PvE players buying the next game, but in an online muiltiplayer setting it makes no sense to cater to this kind of player, because they will leave the game and not invest in its future success.

 

The PvE players LOVE to CONSUME and then quit a game. They are NOT the target audience for online multiplayer gaming! PvE players do not buy your cosmetics and microtransactions moreso than the PvP players who want to look badass while they kill their enemies. There is ample evidence showing that PvP games with microtransactions far outperform PvE games with microtransactions, and it is such a shame to see any game developer for online multiplayer PC games trying to cater to a PvE crowd, when they should be trying to amass as many hardcore players as possible.

 

 

Many opinions here asserted as facts without 3rd party evidence to support those claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, microphobe said:

I feel that this is more of a "towards the end of EA" thing, get the core of the game and things like economy working even the AI for travelling ships working properly before we join factions that have functional towns/navies etc.
But it would be nice, even if you have to earn your place in the faction and we all start out as neutral to all factions having to perform tasks or play in a certain way to earn points with that faction rather than just picking at creation.

I have to disagree about it being a toward the end of EA thing, as such a system could drastically alter the core aspects of the game. Changes like that are better done early on so they can be iterated upon and balanced before release.

That said, a majority of the content that comes along with the implementation of a faction system could be added much later on, such as the NPC towns amd whatnot. That was mentioned mainly to illustrate that there are many different paths for types of content that a faction system would enable.

One of the pitfalls ARK had was that new content added down the line always seemed independent of each other and there was major issues with cohesion in overall game design. I think that this is a better path to take that wouls help everything tie together a lot better.

Edited by Kidori
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NPC -- 

  • Pirate ships -- that you could claim if you defeat them without sinking. (chance for interesting ship variants you can only get this way)
  • Merchant cargo ships -- Common, rare, and legendary resources. (Unique resources only available via merchant ships)
  • Ports and Settlements (as mentioned above)
  • Pirate bases (claimable through defeating them)
  • Mini-boss creatures (like alphas, but less random -- drop unique loot, and only spawn and stay in a limited dangerous area)
  • More loot in general -- It's great to craft stuff, but it would be sweet to get swords and guns that are only available on certain islands from certain NPCs)
  • Sea witches and Voodoo witch doctors

Systems -- 

  • Earn-able "titles" that give access to special craftables.
  • Player created (and posted) quests requesting resources, needed items (seeds, ingredients, and such), animals, or crafted gear... (in exchange for gold)
  • Ability to generate Deeds for any sell-able item (ships, houses, tames, a sack full of beets)

Just to name a few... 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My whole opinion on the PVP vs PVE argument is that most MMO style games they exist on the same server side by side to a degree with an opt in/opt out when you want (not all but most). We should not be comparing a game like Atlas to CS:GO, CoD, Battlefield, fortnite, Apex etc. These kinds of games are the kind you  jump in with no time  investment, couple minutes to 20 minutes  for a match or whatever. You loot and shoot. You gain progress outside of the match which you never lose and then you can logout come back the next day and be in the same starting position. I have played these kinds of games tons in the past. They are very enjoyable.

Now if I had to spend 4 hours before a single round to equip myself, make ammo, etc to die and lose it all while I was not even in a match... you get the point here these don't compare...

Atlas on the other hand is an mmo survival. You have to invest time into infrastructure, ships, defenses, offense etc etc. You can spend an entire evening working on a portion of it and login the next day on PvP currently and have it all taken away.

I personally think the game is an MMO and players on the PvE and PvP should be playing on the same server map, but grids should be PvE and PvP based and players should play alongside each other. PvP players who may not enjoy PvE content don't have to do it but PvE content could bring PvE players into the realm of PvP players periodically for high reward but a lot of potential risk. PvP players who may not enjoy the grinding of PvE content could trade with PvE players as well as occasionally catch a PvE player off guard and take their stuff (On a PvP server). PvP players can then live in PvP if they enjoy the constant PvP or also live in PvE with protection when they have to be someone who also has to do the whole life thing but be able to also partake both vs the PvP groups who enjoy the non stop part but also against the other PvE people who venture out while they are in PvP mode. Essentially no one is specifically PVP or PVP but can be both when they can or choose to be. To think that Atlas will somehow survive with a FPS mentality of never ending PvP is going to lead to the official servers becoming a toxic environment most players would rather avoid and tons of unofficial servers like on ARK. I for one would much rather see a few big PVPVE official servers with content for both sides and mechanics to deal with griefing on both ends. It's not that I dislike PvE and think PvP deserves more or that PvE deserves more. They BOTH deserve equal attention but I think they also exist better side by side in this kind of a game for the sake of both groups of players.

Edited by Thor Ragnarock
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

i really like that governor idea, but in freeport. like allow every company a 3 by 3 by 7 height build spot and trade kiosk in the front or maybe even premade buildings a company can claim... and make free port a bustling town. make the paths between plots beautiful and build plots close to main square only buildable for the top 10's or something special like that.. allow companies to only build on one or two freeports. put a duel arena and betting station/bounty board smack dab in the middle of freeports town square.
boom. that'd be sick.

EDIT: hell, you could make the plots or premade buildings buyable with gold for a certain amount of time like a day or so. Make it so you can display your banner and stuff. make it fancy. make it worth investing in that building. show off one's prestige. make the governor's building the fanciest of all. have a governor race once a week. everyone who owns a plot gets a vote. what governorship means to the people is decided by the people.

Edited by Enki Anunnaki
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×