Merge PvP and PvE

[pfg 16]

Hard NO to the entire concept - already have griefers in the Kraken fight and all you want is more places / people to offline raid.

Wanna help the game REDUCE the daily raid window to ~2 hours and make an item that the owner can buy to make his island un-raidable. The real problem is how do you a) force a "fair" fight and b) how do you define "fair".  Then everyone would have more fun.

Hard NO to the entire concept - already have griefers in the Kraken fight and all you want is more places / people to offline raid.

Wanna help the game REDUCE the daily raid window to ~2 hours and make an item that the owner can buy to make his island un-raidable. The real problem is how do you a) force a "fair" fight and b) how do you define "fair".  Then everyone would have more fun.

[Captain Stabbin 34]

OP you are smoking too much of that stuff!

ask yourself why they make them separate and realize the futility of your post!

SMH

[Salty Jack 56]

I could get behind a factions server....

[sgzeroone 63]

6 people per grid is perfect!  Anymore than 6 people and the servers can't really handle it anyways.  But forcing PVE players to play PVP just so you have someone to gank and greif is just stupid.  I guess they have run out of people to prey on the PVP servers and they need fresh meat.  LOL.

[Myrmidon 12]

Wow. Y'all wanna talk about PvP being a toxic community? Yeah, I'm a PvP player. Not once did I disrespect all the PvE players in here. Yet y'all are frothing at the mouths at a simple idea that could be discussed civilly. Perhaps you should look inward a bit.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

3 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

Wow. Y'all wanna talk about PvP being a toxic community? Yeah, I'm a PvP player. Not once did I disrespect all the PvE players in here. Yet y'all are frothing at the mouths at a simple idea that could be discussed civilly. Perhaps you should look inward a bit.

Oh please.

Get out of here with that stuff. As I’ve already said I’ve had to listen to pvp players repeatedly talk down to and disrespect not just specific pve players they disagreed with, but ALL pve players as a group for 15 years ad naseum. Please link me to any post you’ve ever made taking your fellow pvpers to task for this behavior, yet here you are talking of speaking civilly when your grand idea of taking all pve players and involuntarily stuffing them into a much smaller play area surrounded by oh look! A much bigger portion of the map for you and your pvp ilk is met with the sharp criticism and derision it so richly deserves.

Now who is the snowflake?

GTFO with that nonsense.

[Myrmidon 12]

Just now, boomervoncannon said:

Oh please.

Get out of here with that stuff. As I’ve already said I’ve had to listen to pvp players repeatedly talk down to and disrespect not just specific pve players they disagreed with, but ALL pve players as a group for 15 years ad naseum. Please link me to any post you’ve ever made taking your fellow pvpers to task for this behavior, yet here you are talking of speaking civilly when your grand idea of taking all pve players and involuntarily stuffing them into a much smaller play area surrounded by oh look! A much bigger portion of the map for you and your pvp ilk is met with the sharp criticism and derision it so richly deserves.

Now who is the snowflake?

GTFO with that nonsense.

If you removed all islands that are non inhabited, how big of a grid do you think you'd have left? Both PvP and PvE grids are too thin. Yes, PvE players would be pushed into a smaller area. So would PvP. PvE players, despite what everyone seems to think, would not have to participate in any PvP if they didn't want to. They simply stay in the PvE zones. This creates a new type of content and interation between the PvP and PvE communities. If you want to insult me based on an entire "type" of people - the problem is yours, Sir, not mine. I don't treat people that way.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

Just now, Myrmidon said:

If you removed all islands that are non inhabited, how big of a grid do you think you'd have left? Both PvP and PvE grids are too thin. Yes, PvE players would be pushed into a smaller area. So would PvP. PvE players, despite what everyone seems to think, would not have to participate in any PvP if they didn't want to. They simply stay in the PvE zones. This creates a new type of content and interation between the PvP and PvE communities. If you want to insult me based on an entire "type" of people - the problem is yours, Sir, not mine. I don't treat people that way.

Again, your idea is bad. 

Just plain bad.

Laughably bad.

The fact that the tally of commenters for and against your proposal is 0 to double digits and counting speaks volumes. The idea has no merit whatsoever to any pve player and the criticism you’re getting for suggesting something so blatantly suited only to your own desires at the expense of others is well deserved. Can’t handle the fact people don’t like your idea and are telling you so without sugar coating it?

Not my problem.

I haven’t noticed anyone insulting you personally, just criticizing your idea. The things said here are far milder than the way pvpers as a group routinely speak about and to pve players, so until you start regulating on the behavior of your own, your cries of poor treatment are going to fall on deaf ears.

Suck it up buttercup.

[Rainy 5]

@Myrmidon Your original post states "Want Ironwood or Twigs? Gotta travel through PvP territory. Rare resources should be a reason to leave PvE zones. This way, everything cannot be crafted in PvE zones. Kraken should remain a PvP zone."    

So who exactly does this benefit?  Everything in this whole scenario is geared to benefit the PvP player.  So why would I want to play still?  What's in this for the PvE player?  You want a conversation?  Ok...sell me why this would be fun for me.  Because right now....I see nothing that appeals to me. 

Also...flip your map around...red = PvE...blue = PvP.   Now is it still as great an idea?

 

[Myrmidon 12]

1 minute ago, Rainy said:

Also...flip your map around...red = PvE...blue = PvP.   Now is it still as great an idea?

 

Yep. The area of the PvP and PvE zones would have to be adjusted to make sense. As I posted, that was just a rudimentary drawing.

[Chucksteak 278]

5 hours ago, Derfel said:

That's very disappointing, I imagined large battles at sea , a fortified seaport defending against ship barrages etc...

Unappealing dose of reality it seems...

So why would you play PvP if it's just that bad?

Its not that bad. He is hyperbolic in his depictions. Boats are terribly unsecured assets. There is no way to make a boat last against anyone who wants to sink it. Mind you, sinking it is the more efficient way to harvest the cream filling. 

About bases, since this season launched my base was compromised once. I lost SOME mats, but no more than an hour or 2 of effort. The value is in the structure itself in most cases and its not efficient to demo the entire structure. There is no easy or effective way to mass wipe structures and who really cares if someone spends 4 hours of resources to gain 2 hours worth? Honestly I was wiped more often with 600 people on the server before the relaunch than I am with 1500-3000 players since.

Sailing around, there are ships and bases everywhere to attack. There is NOT a lack of people to play against. Nor is there an absolute you will get wiped when you log off. There IS a CHANCE. 

In all honesty, if your good at PvE, maintaining an island and bases is in your advantage. You will naturally be better at it than most PvPers.

[Chucksteak 278]

53 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

Again, your idea is bad. 

Just plain bad.

Laughably bad.

The fact that the tally of commenters for and against your proposal is 0 to double digits and counting speaks volumes. The idea has no merit whatsoever to any pve player and the criticism you’re getting for suggesting something so blatantly suited only to your own desires at the expense of others is well deserved. Can’t handle the fact people don’t like your idea and are telling you so without sugar coating it?

Not my problem.

I haven’t noticed anyone insulting you personally, just criticizing your idea. The things said here are far milder than the way pvpers as a group routinely speak about and to pve players, so until you start regulating on the behavior of your own, your cries of poor treatment are going to fall on deaf ears.

Suck it up buttercup.

Id like to throw my hat in with the "0" votes side. The fact is, all the games I think were the "BEST" games were mixed PvE and PvP. The best version of this game imho would have simply a NA server, along with an EU and CN server. Ofc with a way different map layout than what was suggested, although it was called out as being exceptionally rudimentary.

The problem is the systems and mechanics to support this haven't even been mentioned, making it sound like a worse idea than it actually is.  

This conversation should have nothing to do with server pop. I think the fact that the PvP pop is around 1500-3000 is a great thing. The game is better/best with about that many people on. Remember these are supposed to be colony servers, not facilitated to these "mega" abominations. They were given their server and no one wanted to play that way so enforcing "non-megas" should be a thing as well.

 

1 hour ago, Myrmidon said:

If you removed all islands that are non inhabited, how big of a grid do you think you'd have left? Both PvP and PvE grids are too thin. 

I don't know about PvE, but PvP has just about every island inhabited.

 

 

3 hours ago, ALLAN said:

They could just keep the PvE server and then maybe add into the PvP server with some PvE areas. Server would need to be wiped due to all the cheating on PvP to make it fair for anyone new coming in

The legitimate complaint is about the near endorsement of cheating from the Dev/GM side. However lets not pretend that there are no cheaters on PvE,  just less noticeable because of the style. Don't be silly and pretend only people in PvP cheat.

[ALLAN 5]

14 minutes ago, Chucksteak said:

Id like to throw my hat in with the "0" votes side. The fact is, all the games I think were the "BEST" games were mixed PvE and PvP. The best version of this game imho would have simply a NA server, along with an EU and CN server. Ofc with a way different map layout than what was suggested, although it was called out as being exceptionally rudimentary.

The problem is the systems and mechanics to support this haven't even been mentioned, making it sound like a worse idea than it actually is.  

This conversation should have nothing to do with server pop. I think the fact that the PvP pop is around 1500-3000 is a great thing. The game is better/best with about that many people on. Remember these are supposed to be colony servers, not facilitated to these "mega" abominations. They were given their server and no one wanted to play that way so enforcing "non-megas" should be a thing as well.

 

I don't know about PvE, but PvP has just about every island inhabited.

 

 

The legitimate complaint is about the near endorsement of cheating from the Dev/GM side. However lets not pretend that there are no cheaters on PvE,  just less noticeable because of the style. Don't be silly and pretend only people in PvP cheat.

I'm talking about just the cheating in general that would put an unfair advantage over someone who would come in level 1 for the PVE aspect if they ended up going against someone in a random PvP battle that cheated. I agree cheating occurs on PvE but it doesn't effect other players/companies that much.

[Lotus 593]

3 hours ago, Chucksteak said:

Its not a penalty its an incentive. 75 people are exponentially stronger than 20 people. The reward is being farr stronger, the risk is having to spend more time in upkeep. 

Vs

The reward is not havimg as much upkeep, but aleays being weaker.

This is proven game logic. Tried and tested.

Where was this tested? I've only ever seen things like that in RTS

~Lotus

[Chucksteak 278]

7 minutes ago, Lotus said:

Where was this tested? I've only ever seen things like that in RTS

~Lotus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_mechanics

This is a common concept that can be seen in games everywhere.

MTG - more powerful cards cost more mana

Diablo (all) - better gear is obtained with more time invested

Holy trinity of MMO - DD>Support>Tank>DD

PUBG (Shooters) - Sniper hits harder, fires slower. AR fires faster, hits weaker

Civilizations - Bigger army takes a lot more gold and time to manage, less progress in other areas. Smaller army grants more flexibility in religion/science etc.

Divinity Original Sin 2 - Magic users are weaker to physical mobs, Physical users are weaker to magic mobs.

On and on and on I could go.

There should always be a trade off when making a play style decision in a game.

 

[Lotus 593]

1 hour ago, Myrmidon said:

Yep. The area of the PvP and PvE zones would have to be adjusted to make sense. As I posted, that was just a rudimentary drawing.

There's games that have this concept and they are pretty bad IMO. This is why I don't play them.

1 hour ago, Chucksteak said:

Its not that bad. He is hyperbolic in his depictions. Boats are terribly unsecured assets. There is no way to make a boat last against anyone who wants to sink it. Mind you, sinking it is the more efficient way to harvest the cream filling. 

About bases, since this season launched my base was compromised once. I lost SOME mats, but no more than an hour or 2 of effort. The value is in the structure itself in most cases and its not efficient to demo the entire structure. There is no easy or effective way to mass wipe structures and who really cares if someone spends 4 hours of resources to gain 2 hours worth? Honestly I was wiped more often with 600 people on the server before the relaunch than I am with 1500-3000 players since.

Sailing around, there are ships and bases everywhere to attack. There is NOT a lack of people to play against. Nor is there an absolute you will get wiped when you log off. There IS a CHANCE. 

In all honesty, if your good at PvE, maintaining an island and bases is in your advantage. You will naturally be better at it than most PvPers.

A thick base will prevent you from being wiped most of the time.

44 minutes ago, Chucksteak said:

Id like to throw my hat in with the "0" votes side. The fact is, all the games I think were the "BEST" games were mixed PvE and PvP. The best version of this game imho would have simply a NA server, along with an EU and CN server. Ofc with a way different map layout than what was suggested, although it was called out as being exceptionally rudimentary.

The problem is the systems and mechanics to support this haven't even been mentioned, making it sound like a worse idea than it actually is.  

This conversation should have nothing to do with server pop. I think the fact that the PvP pop is around 1500-3000 is a great thing. The game is better/best with about that many people on. Remember these are supposed to be colony servers, not facilitated to these "mega" abominations. They were given their server and no one wanted to play that way so enforcing "non-megas" should be a thing as well.

 

I don't know about PvE, but PvP has just about every island inhabited.

 

 

The legitimate complaint is about the near endorsement of cheating from the Dev/GM side. However lets not pretend that there are no cheaters on PvE,  just less noticeable because of the style. Don't be silly and pretend only people in PvP cheat.

If they made a colonies server with the caps of empires I think it would have been better. The problem empires had when it was the old claim system which was super flawed.

 

PvE has cheaters but it doesn't really get you an edge like it does in PvP. To me though if you have to cheat or exploit in a game you are just a weak person that did not have parents that taught you right from wrong.

[Lotus 593]

6 minutes ago, Chucksteak said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_mechanics

This is a common concept that can be seen in games everywhere.

MTG - more powerful cards cost more mana

Diablo (all) - better gear is obtained with more time invested

Holy trinity of MMO - DD>Support>Tank>DD

PUBG (Shooters) - Sniper hits harder, fires slower. AR fires faster, hits weaker

Civilizations - Bigger army takes a lot more gold and time to manage, less progress in other areas. Smaller army grants more flexibility in religion/science etc.

Divinity Original Sin 2 - Magic users are weaker to physical mobs, Physical users are weaker to magic mobs.

On and on and on I could go.

There should always be a trade off when making a play style decision in a game.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_mechanics

This is a common concept that can be seen in games everywhere.

MTG - more powerful cards cost more mana

^This is a blueprint costing more.

Diablo (all) - better gear is obtained with more time invested

^This is you farming blueprints.

Holy trinity of MMO - DD>Support>Tank>DD

^ what?

PUBG (Shooters) - Sniper hits harder, fires slower. AR fires faster, hits weaker

^galley vs schooner

Civilizations - Bigger army takes a lot more gold and time to manage, less progress in other areas. Smaller army grants more flexibility in religion/science etc.

^the civ with a bigger army (mega) normally captures the city states (small tribes) in a few turns. The upkeep for the bigger army is maintenance so it's already baked in.

Divinity Original Sin 2 - Magic users are weaker to physical mobs, Physical users are weaker to magic mobs.

^I played a necromancer and had high damage, phys, magic resist. My brother made a type of paladin and was basically unkillable.

On and on and on I could go.

There should always be a trade off when making a play style decision in a game.

^There is if you are in a small tribe you will die to a larger tribe if you can't beat them with skill.

 

~Lotus

[Bootstrap 8]

I only read the initial post on this topic.  All I have to say is that a PVP/PVE server is an absolutely horribad idea! We have all played many many online games that know how to balance PVE and PVP, whether they do it on the same server or with separate servers.  Instead of trying to force PVP and PVE players onto the same server to artificially increase player base numbers, how about improving the quality of game play in both the PVP and PVE communities so that gamers actually want to play your game.  I know that many of you were raised with the same work ethic that I was; if you're going to do a job, do it right.  Don't half a$$ it.  I never like to overly criticize people because I feel on some level, people, like our Devs, are trying to do a good job.  But, how many people playing this game actually feel that they are doing their "Best"?!  Game bugs and glitches exist in this game that have existed since the beginning of the ARK days and still haven't been addressed.  Some politely reported and some bitched about since the Day 1 release of Atlas.  After approximately 17 years of playing online games of all kinds, I honestly feel like this is one of the worst Dev teams that I have dealt with.  Obviously very intelligent people, but horrible at communicating with their player base and horrible at addressing issues with their game, even though most of them are glaringly obvious.  My recommendation to them is to slow down, take a breath, address some of the most glaring issues with their game, make it more playable and likable by the existing player base that has stuck with you up to this point.  They are obviously the online gamers that like this gaming concept and want this game to succeed.

Okay trolls, have at it.

[Salty Jack 56]

Think I might make a character on the PvP server.... will make a base that is nothing but a solid mass of stone foundations 10x10x3 with a 1x1 room in the middle that contains nothing but a sign saying “you win” on it....

[Chucksteak 278]

1 minute ago, Lotus said:

PvE has cheaters but it doesn't really get you an edge like it does in PvP. To me though if you have to cheat or exploit in a game you are just a weak person that did not have parents that taught you right from wrong.

That is my biggest issue with PvE, your playing a solo game with 1500 other people also playing a solo game. Yes, I know, your in a company and not solo, but you certainly aren't playing "against" anyone. Your still silly playing as a pirate with no chance of ever getting to be a pirate. But I digress.

I think you are incorrect about them having bad parents. Cheating is a moral issue, and plenty of other cultures, lets say non-western, don't share the same view of morals as a whole.

Lets take for example, a communist territory. Just for fun lets say they have, oh a billion people or more population. Completely random place. How much do you think morals would come into play? It would almost never. On that scale, with that ideology, efficiency trumps all. Again, as a whole.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

10 minutes ago, Salty Jack said:

Think I might make a character on the PvP server.... will make a base that is nothing but a solid mass of stone foundations 10x10x3 with a 1x1 room in the middle that contains nothing but a sign saying “you win” on it....

If you do this I demand entreat, beg, cajole, request, implore, pester and otherwise ask you to post screenies. This is, by a wide margin, the best idea in this thread.

[Chucksteak 278]

@Lotus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_mechanics

This is a common concept that can be seen in games everywhere.

MTG - more powerful cards cost more mana

^This is a blueprint costing more.

I never said EVERYTHING was unbalanced. We are talking about the balance in company size. Please focus on the topic you are responding too.

Diablo (all) - better gear is obtained with more time invested

^This is you farming blueprints.

See above.

Holy trinity of MMO - DD>Support>Tank>DD

^ what?

Are you new to MMORPGS? Google this please.

PUBG (Shooters) - Sniper hits harder, fires slower. AR fires faster, hits weaker

^galley vs schooner

Gally is faster, stronger and hits harder, no trade off for choosing it over a schooner, categorically better. Sorry, your wrong.

Civilizations - Bigger army takes a lot more gold and time to manage, less progress in other areas. Smaller army grants more flexibility in religion/science etc.

^the civ with a bigger army (mega) normally captures the city states (small tribes) in a few turns. The upkeep for the bigger army is maintenance so it's already baked in.

You have clearly never lost to religion or science, the easiest and fastest win cons. Play against immortals and better.

Divinity Original Sin 2 - Magic users are weaker to physical mobs, Physical users are weaker to magic mobs.

^I played a necromancer and had high damage, phys, magic resist. My brother made a type of paladin and was basically unkillable.

My mage would 1 shot his pally, I promise. The Necro is a mage that does physical DMG, its more a hybrid and can be specced differently.

On and on and on I could go.

There should always be a trade off when making a play style decision in a game.

^There is if you are in a small tribe you will die to a larger tribe if you can't beat them with skill.

You wont have even close to the amount of time, resources, tames, and gear available to you. Skill goes out of the window somewhere before 75 vs 2.

 

~Lotus

[Lotus 593]

28 minutes ago, Chucksteak said:

That is my biggest issue with PvE, your playing a solo game with 1500 other people also playing a solo game. Yes, I know, your in a company and not solo, but you certainly aren't playing "against" anyone. Your still silly playing as a pirate with no chance of ever getting to be a pirate. But I digress.

I think you are incorrect about them having bad parents. Cheating is a moral issue, and plenty of other cultures, lets say non-western, don't share the same view of morals as a whole.

Lets take for example, a communist territory. Just for fun lets say they have, oh a billion people or more population. Completely random place. How much do you think morals would come into play? It would almost never. On that scale, with that ideology, efficiency trumps all. Again, as a whole.

As hard as they nerf everything for the smaller tribes it's turning into a solo game

I don't understand how the communists would be cheaters -_-

PvE is more about building and hanging out compared to the stress of dealing with cheaters.

~Lotus

[Realist 504]

4 hours ago, Chucksteak said:

This. Devs, how long have i been screaming for proper incentives!? Give the megas proper risk rewards and scale upkeep to give some kind of advantage to smalls

Its ok if my boat is immune to dmg when im not online. Its ok if my body logs out and isnt in game when im not online. Its not hurting the game if my walls are x100000 defense when no one in company is logged in. No one, except tolano, enjoys any aspect of the meta of offlining.

Ive been stealing ships off of freeports all week. Its not even a little fair to the other guys, but they are chineese and likely cheating anyways.

I am surprised we argued as much as we did. Guess people didn’t like me saying this was ark. Also, I guess they didn’t realize this was ark. It still is ark and I doubt it will change.

dont get me wrong, I would rather have this be ark than some kind of bs they are trying to make it.

its really getting “pathetic” on how “different” they are trying to be. Like ke gery pathetic. 

Tike to straighten up and do what you are supposed to do.... fix your game. Don’t bother with broken content and don’t bother with the idiots that tell you that you guys are doing a good job. You are not. There hasn’t been one thing yet that shows that.

become very humble and realize you need to make drastic changes.

your numbers suck. Ark makes atlas look like a 20year project compared to your two year project you have planned.

this is a very sad display of your capabilities. 

You have no excuses anymore. I will be very disappointed if you rely on the excuses some of these idiots give you ok the whole EA thing. You have done this before. It is time to be better then you were before. No Excuses guys. Simply do better than before. 

Please try to better yourselves. I am almost begging you to. A second round won’t be tolerated. Your die hard ark fans are still with ark. You won’t have that support. 

You are doing a very bad job right now and it is time to publicly say “we messed up and we are going to do everything we can to save this game”

of course you won’t because jeremy is worthless, not just as a ceo but as a person as well. It’s not your fault jat. I don’t blame you and I don’t blame ced over at ark still. I actually enjoyed my talks with ced and you as well. You guys have you hands tied behind your back so damn tight it’s not funny.

i literally $@“@$@@ hate jeremy for what he did to both ark and atlas. He has always been the problem and will always be the problem.

these rookies that came from whatever game will never realize this though. That is also why I say who cares what they think. Not their fault, they just don’t know $&@@

[Sydhart 163]

PvP in this game is NOT good. It's a free for all where there is no choice so It happens mostly during offline for 1 of the parties and there are no consequences or rewards. Since there is no goal, people don't have anything to focus on, and just do it to be dicks. There is very little skill involved, no scaling, and exploiting is rampant and goes unpunished. 

There have been a few games that did MMO PvP right and this game has NONE of the aspects of any of those games.

If you want to see good MMORGP PvP games then look to games like Dark Age of Camelot, EVE, and Elder Scrolls Online. 

DaOC - Faction based with 3 factions and each faction had it's own realm and then frontiers between that were fought over. Control of frontiers gave you rewards and bragging rights. 

EVE - I didn't play it a lot but it was all about resources. You had to fight for resources and it had a working economy and factions with NPC's. There was areas with security forces where you could run. Space stations were neutral. You could pay for security of your station and if you missed a payment you became vulnerable. Politics were abundant. There was true loss in the game and a newbie naked ship couldn't do much against an established outpost or other ship. 

Elder Scholls Online  - A huge PvP dedicated zone that was faction based. Whoever controlled the zone was the Ruler. There were 3 factions for balance. There were different keeps within the zone and towns and what not that were linked to them. If you owned a keep you had control of the NPC's in that area and could get quests and buy stuff. 

 

So how could this translate to Atlas?

This is a pirate game but there were different groups of pirates during the ages of piracy and not all of them got along well. There were privateers, buccaneers, corsairs, etc. Some of these "factions" were region based. I can see this fitting into Atlas. Or you could go one further and even make "Nations". Within each nation you could also have "factions". You could have a traders faction (neutral faction increased by trading), a government faction (increased by defeating pirates, other nations ships, or defeating SoTD), and a pirate faction (increased by pirating activities such as taking a hostage from another nations outpost or taking out other nations government NPCs, etc). 

PvP areas could be in between the factions areas that could be the lawless regions with Nation outposts and a build at your own risk mentality. There could be more abundance of rarer resources in these areas and "missions" that you get from your freeports to defeat a certain SoTD or number of them (only found in lawless zones) for blueprints, treasure maps could be more abundant there and higher level, etc. Freeports could be the safe zones that could be spread out evenly between the factions.

Golden age ruins could also be evenly spread and be a faction controllable zone. In order to do the Powerstones quest your faction would have to control the zone there (similar to ESO) in order to get the quest from an Outpost on the ruins island that would be a safe port. If you didn't control the zone, you could still land but the quest and purchases (rare skins, shipheads, etc) wouldn't be available. The faction that last defeated the Hydra or Drake or controlled a central flag point or something, would have control of the port.