www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Pirates of the Burning Sea endgame
Massively recently had a post about the PotBS endgame, but you should have noticed from the "press tour" in the title that what is reported there has nothing at all to do with the real endgame in PotBS. Pirates of the Burning Sea is primarily a PvP game, and the endgame is PvP. There are no raids for phat epics, or other ways to improve your character with equipment. You just make money or grind special royal marks to buy ships with, and then you sink those ships in PvP.
And this is exactly why I don't believe that Pirates of the Burning Sea will keep their players for a very long time. The purpose of the game is PvP, and PvP is a negative sum game. Negative sum because the winners gain less than the losers lose, so if you win one and lose one, you're worse off than before.
What also worries me a bit is that the making money and losing money in PvP part are split between different character classes. The freetrader class is great at making money, even large sums of it, but so bad in ship-to-ship combat that they should avoid any serious PvP action. The pirates, privateers and navy officers will do most of the PvP, but the players enjoying that kind of gameplay might not necessarily be inclined to play in the economic game as well, and so they will constantly be out of money. Now you can imagine a guild having both freetraders and navy officers, with the former financing the latter. But what exactly are the latter going to do for the former? In principle they could escort them, but I doubt that is going to be popular, escorting a freetrader while he brings cargo from A to B. Chances are that if he is escorted, he won't be attacked, so nothing will be happening on that trip, which can be mindnumbingly boring.
A division of labor could work if Pirates of the Burning Sea would have good guild tools, in which the contribution of everyone was somehow rewarded. Unfortunately the PotBS guild tools are very basic, on the same level as World of Warcraft. It is easy to imagine how freetraders in guilds will be paying for most of the ships, get very little recignition for that, and stop playing after a while. The best way to PvP is probably to have two characters, a navy officer and a freetrader, and run the freetrader as money-making alt.
- posted by Tobold @ 3:37 PM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
What you describe (negative sum, division of "labor") is pretty much how EVE online works. There are those who build (and have shitloads of money) and those who fight (and are always broke). The builders business thrives because people do pvp, loose their ships and come back to buy a new one. Thus a true market ensues (unlike the excuse for a market WOW calls its auctionhouse).
Depending on the actual game mechanics PotBS might work brilliantly or fail totally.
Depending on the actual game mechanics PotBS might work brilliantly or fail totally.
Trying to think "Out of the Box" here...
Maybe there's a way that you could design an Instance to do this?
Something like - 1) cargo ship/convoy pays for an escort (cost depends on size of ship/number of cannons). 2) Meanwhile, a separate toon signs on to do an escort mission. 3) Thirdly, a pirate ship intercepts an "escorted convoy".
Then something like a 3 ship (instanced) battle ensues, where the escort & cargo ships missons are to have the cargo ship survive/escape, while the pirate ship is trying to destroy the unarmed cargo ship.
You're basically doing a matchmaking service for 3 types of missions.
Dunno if it's feasible, but it might be worth a shot versus having a dreary 1 ship only type of mission.
Maybe there's a way that you could design an Instance to do this?
Something like - 1) cargo ship/convoy pays for an escort (cost depends on size of ship/number of cannons). 2) Meanwhile, a separate toon signs on to do an escort mission. 3) Thirdly, a pirate ship intercepts an "escorted convoy".
Then something like a 3 ship (instanced) battle ensues, where the escort & cargo ships missons are to have the cargo ship survive/escape, while the pirate ship is trying to destroy the unarmed cargo ship.
You're basically doing a matchmaking service for 3 types of missions.
Dunno if it's feasible, but it might be worth a shot versus having a dreary 1 ship only type of mission.
# posted by 
: 19/12/07 16:54
: 19/12/07 16:54
I think it may work out. You may be underestimating the number of people who really do just enjoy crafting/playing the auctions/making money and not doing PvP.
# posted by : 19/12/07 16:54
: 19/12/07 16:54
I want to like PotBS but it's not looking good so far. As a WOW, EQ2 and former Eve tinker, I do expect the polish and sophistication of these games. PotBS is hella rough just weeks from release. I dont why it's suppose to be acceptable to get the polish, fixes and breadth of hyped content in within the first year. Why is that suppose to appeal to me? Pay now for the promise of reform?
The avatars are horrific, melee combat looks clucky and feels comic at best. Now, I'm a crafter at heart and could certainly play the crafting/trading game and be happy. But then they need to come with the polish, flare or stylishness of EVE. I just can't play clunky games with childish UIs and why would I want to?
Net-net for me, is that my gaming experience should feel other-world, over the top and immersive. If not, then I can just watch TV, put in a movie or work some more.
The avatars are horrific, melee combat looks clucky and feels comic at best. Now, I'm a crafter at heart and could certainly play the crafting/trading game and be happy. But then they need to come with the polish, flare or stylishness of EVE. I just can't play clunky games with childish UIs and why would I want to?
Net-net for me, is that my gaming experience should feel other-world, over the top and immersive. If not, then I can just watch TV, put in a movie or work some more.
# posted by : 19/12/07 21:41
: 19/12/07 21:41
I beta-tested Pirates for awhile. It's not remarkably different from anything else out there, and it suffers from precisely the economic quandary you presented, Tobold.
While not stillborn, I don't think this MMO's going to live for long. Another Auto Assault, perhaps.
While not stillborn, I don't think this MMO's going to live for long. Another Auto Assault, perhaps.
Nay sayers be damned,lol
The game is still more fun and exciting than LoTRO ever was. Just because it is not another WOW clone do not presume that it is doomed to fail. City of Heroes survived long enough to indicate that mmo games do not need IP fantasy settings and 300 pound gorilla of a gaming company to succeed.
The game is still more fun and exciting than LoTRO ever was. Just because it is not another WOW clone do not presume that it is doomed to fail. City of Heroes survived long enough to indicate that mmo games do not need IP fantasy settings and 300 pound gorilla of a gaming company to succeed.
# posted by : 20/12/07 16:05
: 20/12/07 16:05
Some of the PotBS discussion before the NDA dropped suggested there were going to be server resets of sovereignty every few (six?) weeks, so that a single server was unlikely to remain constantly dominated by a single well-organised faction. While this would make sense from a long-term game balance perspective, I imagine it would be pretty frustrating for "end game" players.
Have they implemented a reset system, or did I misunderstand?
Have they implemented a reset system, or did I misunderstand?
# posted by : 21/12/07 00:39
: 21/12/07 00:39
PotBS has victory points based on how many ports a nation conquers. When the score gets high enough, the map resets. But only the map, that is who owns what port resets. If one side has more players than the other (typical distribution is 35% pirate, 35% british, 15% french, 15% spanish, said the devs) or one side has a particularly powerful guild that dominates PvP, a map reset isn't going to change that.
I think it's kind of funny that the biggest criticism of any new MMO is "lack of endgame", when they ALL lack endgame until months after release.
Examine current successes the same way, endgame for WoW on release was sorely lacking, if you could even stay on the crashing servers long enough to get there. =P
Rate a new game based upon the STARTING game, not the ENDGAME. IMHO it's foolish to do otherwise.
Examine current successes the same way, endgame for WoW on release was sorely lacking, if you could even stay on the crashing servers long enough to get there. =P
Rate a new game based upon the STARTING game, not the ENDGAME. IMHO it's foolish to do otherwise.
# posted by : 21/12/07 22:36
: 21/12/07 22:36
I never played Auto Assault, but I think PotBS has more legs under it than that one. For my money, a lot will depend on what they do post launch. The things that bother me know are tolerable if I know they aren't going to ignore: invisible barriers, over use of zoning - lots of zoning with lag is the pure suck, subpar avatars, uninspiring vistas on the open seas, scalable UI, reduced wall of text quests replaced with some voice overs.. So that's only 1 game mechanic that I dont like while the rest is polish and therefore can be fixed.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 23/12/07 17:22
: 23/12/07 17:22<< Home
