BP are you reading our suggestions?

There are at least 350 players logging into the English speaking forums—look at the event announcements that are not continuously being added to. The single announcements are being read by 300-350 players which may not even be everyone. That is just one language forum, there may be that many in each language forum.

BP you could be multiplying these numbers many times over if you would just listen to your players.

There have been dozens of great ideas posted in forums, to wit:

1) BGs that have no minimum number of players--if only two are online and ready up, then two play against each other.

2) Use the test server as a combined pvp server--if a player has an account on any regular server, he or she can log into the test server with that account and play against other players from other servers. If BP doesn't want to use the test server for this, then combine ALL servers into one. NO one pays for items just to hit npcs

3) Barring #2, at least make a single combined arena server. Many players can't even get arena play on their server, or, if they do they are hopelessly outgunned. With a combined server, there is a better chance the system will do what it is supposed to and match them with a similar player.

4) Stop limiting newbie players from playing in BGs! If they want to get their cannons blown off, more power to them--they might actually log into a BG that lasts more than 30 seconds and theirs could be the last shot to sink a ship that gives skulls.

5) Don't limit newbies from playing in the arena either (see above, combine the arena on a test server or each server's arena becomes a portal to a combined server set up some other way, that gives them a chance of an even matchup)

6) Revamp the current system that rewards 50 level guilds that hit guilds way lower than they are--what sort of skill does it take for a level 50 to hit a level 5 guild ? These guilds are getting 1500 points every time that they do (as a mass plunder, they start the month with 20k) but this is strangling any smaller guild from growing.

May I point out that anything that keeps new guilds or new players from advancing just causes the few we get to leave? How about limiting the level of any guild to hitting only guilds of similar levels as you do pvp attacks in the first dozen world zones? It is the same guilds over and over that make top ten, NO new guilds have a chance even when they are made up of high level players. I see new start up guilds going bust all the time--three this week alone on eu1.

Scoring would be:

Successful attack against higher or same level guild, receive 1500 points
If you successfully attack another guild that is one to 5 levels lower guild receive 1200 point
If you successfully attack another guild that is 5 to ten levels lower guild receive 500 points
If you successfully attack another guild that is more than ten levels lower receive 100 points

7) GET RID OF "COINS ARE ONLY GIVEN TO ACTIVE PLAYERS" in the BGs! Jeez, I just played a spider BG that lasted less than 20 seconds because one player was SHOOTING 20,000 EACH VOLLEY! I don't know what BigPoints freakin "formula' is for coins but waiting 15 mins for a BG, getting nothing, then being placed on a "waiting list" indefinitely afterwards is total stupidity on your part, BP.

8) All allies should be able to assist with PLUNDERS as well as defense of guild alliance islands.

It would certainly help smaller guilds if they formed an alliance and those alliance members could attack larger guilds with the scoring I stated in #6. The plunder points would go to the guild that initiated the attack, but, several small guilds could plunder larger ones as a group. This would get the highest level guilds off of their backsides too as they could not rely on a mass plunder of little guilds to shoot up to the top.

9) Get rid of the % loss of power after your guild successfully plunders. If there is any loss of plunder power it should be after a guild LOSES a plunder and take hours to recover.

10) When BP actually gets around to doing any of the above--send an EMAIL announcing this, mark it “urgent, response needed”. You should offer something to get people back to try the new ideas even if it is just a couple of bloods for the combined arena server for instance.

Tell me these ideas would not stir up things a bit.
This is a really good game, but, I only know that because when I started three years ago with PS there were enough people online to get pvp skulls for a piranha, enough people playing that I could get into a BG with my war brig and get more skulls needed for the keel and battle deck for the piri. When I played in the arena most of the ships I played against were close enough to my level of expertise that I won at least as often as I lost. Now, the game offers nothing to new players and without them the game dies.

 

1) battleground need to go to no minimum players to activate or use npc boats to cover the empty spaces, both will work
2) we need a combined arena and battleground server, with the add on rule in arena you do not find a team from your server, that will make things more spicy and more difficult to fix the arena. We will have for each server different rankings for the win of season, but your opponents will al be form different servers. This will do 2 things, give more matches for people, and make it harder to fix.
3)see post number 2
4)newbies need to enter in different battlegrounds so they can learn how to play, do not mix new players with old players, they gain zero coins, and stop playing the game. Split the battleground sin 3 categories of players and each battle against that category.
5) new players need to find the new players, now all the time new players are against level 50 players!?!? the algorithm is complete wrong
6) the island system is wrong. For every level of fortress you need to have 150 points earned when guilds. So level 1 guild will give you 150 points and level 10 1500 points which make more sense the more difficult the more points to get. Also towers and monsters can not be build higher than the level of your fortress. The blueprints will need level of fortress to be able to build them, and the level of workshop will act only for how many items you can put in queue. So you want to save your points and have level 1 fortress you build almost nothing, you want to build special ammunition thus you have high level of fortress you risk if killed to loose more points. It will make the game more strategic, and balance the way islands are played. Because now it only favors the old big islands.
7) the same as 4
8) now alliance is abused, if you break alliance you need to have 30 days of not possible not having the same ally. This way we will not have the stupid situation of today, break alliance close the islands to transfer points and then re ally to be able to defend. I think if you want to be ally you need to stay as ally. This will balance the things in alliances and will make for more strategic way of playing, rather than brutal force of today.
9) no the power loss need to stay or else the big guilds will go 40 k day 1 with a multi
10) more bonus codes will not hurt the company, 4k ammo and a few bloods is nothing for the player but this small thigns can leave everyone very happy

counter proposals

 

Just merge servers and all will be ok.

 

3 & 4 No---if BG dumps that rule about participation to get coins, newbies can enter BGs and coins and even get skulls if they are lucky and persistant. Few big players are going to bother sinking a newbie when they are getting fired on by bigger ships--this is how i got my piranha and its deck, keel, bulkhead, etc---I played the BGs in my War Brig. If you put newbies only in a kindergarten battle ground they will not make many skulls, will not learn to fight and leave out of screaming boredom.

When BP opens up one combined arena server, the likelihood of hitting similar level opponents in the arena will improve immensely. I did it two years ago, if BP does ALL of my list in my post, we can go back to those numbers that we had two years ago. We need critical mass--numbers AND those numbers staying in the game.

I'd actually like to be able to set a bounty on bullies I think it would be great that if someone is bullying others I or any admiral of a guild could place gold or even diamond bounty to pay whomever sinks those turkeys That would be something that was not in place originally and there were lots of bullies back then. (Although I think it would be cool if anyone could get a bounty stuck on them--I could set a bounty on a rival admiral's head and let everyone and their grandmother hit him to collect it for 24 hours....muahahahahahaha)

I agree with you on 8 & 9
10--ok, LOL, give them a bonus code for something worth coming back and trying a combined server, or new guild plunder rules because the company has not supported their faithful, paying players for some time and those players may be a bit distrustful. Give players a reason to trust BP once more because many who have left developed their ships, bought the extras then were hit with dozens of glitches, unimaginative maps and "events" and just left.

@Pagan Horde yes it will help with the game if the servers are merged but certain aspects of the game---top ten guilds always being level 50 and preying solely on little guilds, screwy matchups in arena, dumb rule about "participating to get coins" in BGs where ships are hitting 15-20k and keeping the averages so high that new players or players below level 50 rarely get coins in many BGs---ALL of these will still be there and suck the life out of the game even with merged servers. The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and expecting a different result. The game is really good for the most part but there are issues that have to be addressed if it is to survive. Can't change just one or two things--all of this has to be addressed before BP puts out the word to come back.

Dear Heavens, if I had the cash I'd by the games and the servers and just do it right.

 

That idea is great.
The main issue in a combined merger in arena (which would be less important for battlefields) could be the creation of most bigger arena alliances as there is already; eg. russian players together, polish together, french together, etc
Players communicate now a lot between all servers. Teamspeak, & social networks as Facebook or UTube channels & groups participate to that and BP should be aware of that situation.

If we take Eu1, Eu2 and Eu4 arena season winners for the last 2 years, Russian and Eastern Europe players are currently globally predominant.

Even with more players playing, the current arena match-making system does not help to make pushing.

Since the new BP terms & rules published 1st of Nov 2016, so few things have changed... we still see arena pushing with sloops or small accounts in arena on several servers, even if this is not to win a dow for the season, but only to unlock items.
All players should have the chance to have arena match / and more fair match-making and try to win and don't use small accounts for that.

On EU4, you can wait for 3 or 4 hours to get a 3v3 arena, when big teams don't play and when big teams play, what is the chance for smaller players to win???!!
On EU1, quite all active players have full accounts and are full items. So you have arenas but you have to spend a lot of items to hope to win 1 match. How again can new or medium players expect anything there?

So a combined arena server could bring worse results at the end than we should have expected, if the arena system stays the same

Only an anonymous system in arena and playing againts players from ALL other servers than its own server, could better guarantee fair fight, less arena pushing and maybe different arena season results.

Otherwise, BP should have to rethink the whole arena system match making, like for battlefields, and it becomes more complicated to implement.

Players will still always find fails into the game, but more securitized it is, better it is

 

"Only an anonymous system in arena and playing againts players from ALL other servers than its own server, could better guarantee fair fight, less arena pushing and maybe different arena season results."

I just had an epiphany: Guilds use teamspeak to see if they are in the same arena match with each other. Even if the matches are anonymous all they need do is ask other members via TS if they are in a match with whatever ship they see.

So....

1) Match the players based on scrolls, captains/orders/rank

AND

2) Hide the players names, rank and the type of ships! On an arena combined server, there will just be an avatar for each ship--you don't know who you are fighting nor what ship they have nor even their pvp rank (sea lion etc).

= By the time any guildies figure out that they are NOT in a match with each other, I will have sunk them

Think of it as a blind date Works for me