Good afternoon,
Me a lots of other pirates have been talking about a battle royale type mode as we are all huge on hourglass but agree it’s starting to die down a little and would like some new exciting pvp mode. A 10-15 sloop dedicated server, with that server being only for the purpose of battle royale, so no spawning loot island skellies, phantoms or ocean crawlers. No meg, kraken or skelly ship spawns. This is to keep the server running as smoothly as possible to allow for the larger amount of ships in the event. No outpost accessibility ie merchant supplies captains supplies or supplies in barrels. Every ship spawns with the same amount of supplies, but not the normal amount, maybe 10 chains each 200 balls 100 wood, 5 pineapples, 10 mangos etc. the no spawning supplies in island or outpost barrels is to make the fighting more interesting to keep players reserving supplies and playing smart. Last ship standing wins, with gold and reputation dividing equally dependent on place scored. We all really liked arena mode and still really like hourglass but something like this for us pvp enthusiasts would mean a great deal. Some new pvp modes would be great as it’s been a while now since the release of hourglass and it feels like pvp has been left to gather dust with all the pve content. If this is possible I really think it could go somewhere even into ranked modes.
New game modes
- The game doesn't run smoothly even with 5-6 ships sometimes, let alone with 10-15. Taking out some of the PvE content won't help much.
- Arena was a thing. Until it wasn't.
- If they allow PvP-only based realms, it's only fair to allow PvE-only realms as well. None of these will happen.
- Doing so is just one more thing (mode) to maintain, and they're already spread like a tiny peace of butter over a big piece of bread.
You don't need 10-15 sloops on a server (not happening by the way lol) in order for pvp enthusiasts to have fun. Go and find a few ships on the high seas to sink, or stack loot and have the key to the FotD/FoF. I promise ships will come to you. Only 2% of a player's time was spent in Arena. It wasn't worth keeping the server running. Also, with the bonus-loot event going on, I had to sink 3 sloops this morning in order to finish the skull fort, with one sloop coming back repeatedly. Trust me, pvp isn't gathering any dust lol.
@i-sotbot-i said
Me a lots of other pirates have been talking about a battle royale type mode as we are all huge on hourglass but agree it’s starting to die down a little and would like some new exciting pvp mode. A 10-15 sloop dedicated server, with that server being only for the purpose of battle royale, so no spawning loot island skellies, phantoms or ocean crawlers
We all really liked arena mode and still really like hourglass but something like this for us pvp enthusiasts would mean a great deal. Some new pvp modes would be great as it’s been a while now since the release of hourglass and it feels like pvp has been left to gather dust with all the pve content. If this is possible I really think it could go somewhere even into ranked modes.
-
They haven't touched HG updates in months, so good luck in convincing them to add game modes to that, which as you said in a pretty dead Hourglass community they are NOT going to take risks. The growth potential isn't there, they have statistics of how how often the average Timmy engages in PvP. Let alone player retention to even get to that point of ''Hey let's make an Arena Reboot''!
-
Yeah what you are explaining is just Arena in a different manner, no hiding that. RARE has ZERO interest in bringing it back, they double downed on that multiple times and THEN double downed on it once again. A standalone PvP mode is Never going to happen.
-
[mod removed - Self Promo]
-
OR, You can join those really niche PvP community's that host tournaments once in a while like sloop wars. Again those don't last long, they normally crop up and die in a few months, generic copy cat blands of what the LBH, LoT set out to do in the first place, and still died when it was the last hope for PvP Competitive Enthusiasts.
-
To summarize I think everyone should be reading between the lines here regarding SoT/RARE. There's zero support nor 'tools' when it comes to the PvP community. Which is what is annoying a lot of players off because THERE ONCE WERE. Which is RARE's fault because they have created this failed hope in some people who just won't move on and do better things.
-
@europa4033 i don't understand why the 2% player time in arena argument is always used. Say you were a hardcore player playing 8 hours a day and always finishing off with an arena match, you'd still just have 3% of your time in arena, despite playing it every day. Arena didn't have a lot of playtime because it wasn't something you binged like adventure, it was something you did to get a quick change of pace. Same argument could be made if you were a casual player playing an hour a day and only playing arena once a week, low playtime but big impact
@i-sotbot-i said in New game modes:
Good afternoon,
Me a lots of other pirates have been talking about a battle royale type mode as we are all huge on hourglass but agree it’s starting to die down a little and would like some new exciting pvp mode. A 10-15 sloop dedicated server, with that server being only for the purpose of battle royale, so no spawning loot island skellies, phantoms or ocean crawlers. No meg, kraken or skelly ship spawns. This is to keep the server running as smoothly as possible to allow for the larger amount of ships in the event. No outpost accessibility ie merchant supplies captains supplies or supplies in barrels. Every ship spawns with the same amount of supplies, but not the normal amount, maybe 10 chains each 200 balls 100 wood, 5 pineapples, 10 mangos etc. the no spawning supplies in island or outpost barrels is to make the fighting more interesting to keep players reserving supplies and playing smart. Last ship standing wins, with gold and reputation dividing equally dependent on place scored. We all really liked arena mode and still really like hourglass but something like this for us pvp enthusiasts would mean a great deal. Some new pvp modes would be great as it’s been a while now since the release of hourglass and it feels like pvp has been left to gather dust with all the pve content. If this is possible I really think it could go somewhere even into ranked modes.I love the idea of more PvP modes, my concern is that with multiple PvP on demand systems they’d be competing with one another. I’m lucky to play within the NA region as the queue is healthy enough that there isn’t much of a wait, even off-hours if you’re duo or solo. Some regions out there suffer with long queues even without competition from another pvp system, though.
@captain-knyt said in New game modes:
@europa4033 i don't understand why the 2% player time in arena argument is always used. Say you were a hardcore player playing 8 hours a day and always finishing off with an arena match, you'd still just have 3% of your time in arena, despite playing it every day. Arena didn't have a lot of playtime because it wasn't something you binged like adventure, it was something you did to get a quick change of pace. Same argument could be made if you were a casual player playing an hour a day and only playing arena once a week, low playtime but big impact
The reason this "argument" is used all the time, is because it's a direct quote from the developers as to why they shut it down. They have the numbers and made their decision.
@europa4033 Yes, but just saying the % of time spent was low is not a good argument, it doesn't show the whole picture. For example it would be more useful to know the % of players that played the mode monthly as well. If only 2% of the player base played the mode, then it makes sense to remove it. But i doubt that was the case
@captain-knyt said in New game modes:
@europa4033 Yes, but just saying the % of time spent was low is not a good argument, it doesn't show the whole picture. For example it would be more useful to know the % of players that played the mode monthly as well. If only 2% of the player base played the mode, then it makes sense to remove it. But i doubt that was the case
Yes, but just saying the % of time spent was low is not a good argument, it doesn't show the whole picture.
The devs have said only 2% of all global playtime was spent in arena.
As in, between Arena and High Seas, Arena had 2% of the game's activity.
That's the whole picture.For example it would be more useful to know the % of players that played the mode monthly as well.
Why? We know that, globally (As in; In the entire game), Arena only made up 2% of the playerbase's use.
If only 2% of the player base played the mode, then it makes sense to remove it. But i doubt that was the case
We got one better; 2% of all player's time was spent in area.
As in, if you add up every player's every minute spent in the game when Arena existed; 2% of it was spent in Arena.And you can doubt it all you want; That's what the devs have said. Out of everyone's global playtime; 2% was Arena.
I don't get why people always say 'I doubt what the devs have said is what really happened'.@captain-knyt said in New game modes:
@europa4033 Yes, but just saying the % of time spent was low is not a good argument, it doesn't show the whole picture. For example it would be more useful to know the % of players that played the mode monthly as well. If only 2% of the player base played the mode, then it makes sense to remove it. But i doubt that was the case
Number of Players or number of Accounts ? AFAIK alt-accounts in Arena was a thing so people would get multiple account with TDM cosmetics. Plus probably some ban evasion alts as well.
Number of servers used would be a better statistic. Somehow I doubt there were many active Arena ones compared to the Adventure ones.
@guildar9194 Seems like you didn't read my original reply at all, I don't doubt the 2% playertime statistic, i just don't see how it's important by itself.
If you have a source that only 2% of the playerbase played it as well, then shoot
Just because you don't see (or don';t want to admit) that it's important, does not mean people have to scrabble to give you evidence you want.
If 2% of ALL PLAYER'S TIME was Spent in Arena, then it stands to reason that only a small section of the player base played it.
If more players used it, then more player time would have been spent in it. Logic!
Also; You're asking for evidence the devs have not given us. Probably because you know that the devs have not given it.You wanting to ignore the evidence the developers gave us to ask for evidence they have not is called 'Moving the goalposts'.
Regardless of what you see as important; The devs said what they said. And you wanting to ignore it does not invalidate it.Arena is dead and gone because barely anyone used it & most the toxicity reports came from it. Plus it was a pain to update every time the game was updated.
These are things the developers have said. The Pro Arena crowed can ignore it, pretend the devs are wrong, and demand more evidence; But none of that changes the facts.@guildar9194 you're making no sense, just read my first reply
Low player time is not inherently low player base, I know i didn't play much arena, 2% is probably accurate to me, but i enjoyed it when i did
Number of servers used would be a better statistic. Somehow I doubt there were many active Arena ones compared to the Adventure ones.
I also imagine the threshold for what is an "active" Adventure server is also lower than an active Arena server of 5 crews. How many do you need in Adventure before a server is merged? 2?
It was also possible for some time to prevent a server merge by never dropping anchor (iirc?), though I don't remember how long it was around before they patched it. But an "active server" could have been occupied by one sleep deprived solo loot stacker.
@theblackbellamy said in New game modes:
Number of servers used would be a better statistic. Somehow I doubt there were many active Arena ones compared to the Adventure ones.
I also imagine the threshold for what is an "active" Adventure server is also lower than an active Arena server of 5 crews. How many do you need in Adventure before a server is merged? 2?
It was also possible for some time to prevent a server merge by never dropping anchor (iirc?), though I don't remember how long it was around before they patched it. But an "active server" could have been occupied by one sleep deprived solo loot stacker.
We could count solo servers as 1/6th (or was it 1/5th at the time ?) of a server but likewise there were loads of Arena bouts where one or two ships didn't even lift their anchor and despawned shortly after the start ...
We could count solo servers as 1/6th (or was it 1/5th at the time ?) of a server but likewise there were loads of Arena bouts where one or two ships didn't even lift their anchor and despawned shortly after the start ...
Maybe loads overall but certainly not most lol. It's been years, but iirc, if a crew dodged just before the match started, it'd load their boat in, then scuttle it. If that happened to you frequently, you were just that good.
Even so, any crew's absence would've been felt for 15 min, before the next lobby filled any vacancies. Open crew assignment/staging and other matchmaking issues certainly created obstacles in filling those vacancies. Resulting in long waiting periods, even in instances where all 5 crews were full or closed.
I imagine if there was an indefinite waiting period before even entering Adventure, players would have lost interest in that mode too lol. Makes me wonder if Arena tavern time was included in the 2% stat.
@theblackbellamy said in New game modes:
We could count solo servers as 1/6th (or was it 1/5th at the time ?) of a server but likewise there were loads of Arena bouts where one or two ships didn't even lift their anchor and despawned shortly after the start ...
Maybe loads overall but certainly not most lol. It's been years, but iirc, if a crew dodged just before the match started, it'd load their boat in, then scuttle it. If that happened to you frequently, you were just that good.
I think most of our (sloop) bouts had a ship sunk/scuttled after we dropped the rowwie, lifted our anchor. Or maybe the the removal of the ship in the list took longer than they actually were gone.
Plus some crews gave up after 5-10 minutes; we never did - even though we could not win, I (as mostly helm) needed more kills with the EoR and cannon (no TDM by us).
Not sure that it was our reputation wthat made them log off/switch server though 😁.Even so, any crew's absence would've been felt for 15 min, before the next lobby filled any vacancies. Open crew assignment/staging and other matchmaking issues certainly created obstacles in filling those vacancies. Resulting in long waiting periods, even in instances where all 5 crews were full or closed.
Yeah, the waiting was terrible - we got moved to another waiting tavern almost after every fight; or the other crews were whisked away (we met some of them again the bout after the next one though) - that sure didn't help either.
I imagine if there was an indefinite waiting period before even entering Adventure, players would have lost interest in that mode too lol. Makes me wonder if Arena tavern time was included in the 2% stat.
I wondered about that myself as well.
@captain-knyt said in New game modes:
@guildar9194 you're making no sense, just read my first reply
Low player time is not inherently low player base, I know i didn't play much arena, 2% is probably accurate to me, but i enjoyed it when i did
You are taking 'Time' too narrowly.
If 2% of all the time spent by every player with the game launched was spent in Arena; It means it had a low player base as well.
Because no one was playing it.If more people played it, then more time would have been spent in it.
The devs are not saying 'Each player spent 2% of their own time in Arena'.
They are saying 'When you take the game as a whole; Only 2% of everyone's time was spent in Arena. The other 98% was High Seas.'
Which implies a low player count.I don't think we should aim for new game modes outside of the main game world. The the programming and maintenance would be too much to ask rare to do. The juice would not be worth the squeeze. HOWEVER, new game modes would be feasible using existing mechanics e.g. diving to voyages.
One of "games" my guild plays is grog capture the flag on insiders. We get a gallon, a barrel of 1000 grogs and head to wanders refuge. Then using the HG mechanic a second gally dives to the island, we put one at each end and the grog in the middle. Aim of the game is to get the grog into the other teams crows nest. Lots of fun. No loot juggling, swiming out to sea or harpooning allowed. If this was a dive to Voyage, setting it up could occur very easily. Dive to empty server, increase shark spawn rate, etc
Another could be a TDM voyage. Dive to a fort,
Providing Rare did not have to spend time with adding extra mechanics, having a butch of "special" voyages would be pretty fun. The exception would be the guild war idea.
@captain-knyt said in New game modes:
@guildar9194 again, low player time ≠ low playerbase, that’s a complete assumption
It's a safe assumption.
If more people played Arena, then the playtime in Arena would have been higher.You can dismiss the info the devs have given us all you want; They said that barely anyone played Arena. So it's gone.
@captain-knyt said in New game modes:
@guildar9194 again, low player time ≠ low playerbase, that’s a complete assumption
Assumption or not it doesn't matter. What matters is whether a mode is worth being maintained by devs or not. Arena obviously wasn't, as directly stated by devs.
If you have a low engagement, to keep investing time and resources into something like that isn't worth it.
2% total? Def not worth it.
The problem with a true battle royale mode in SOT is that it would absolutely need to be its own game completely separate game mode like Arena...heck, maybe even its own game altogether.
But, that goes back to the (real) reason Arena was killed off in the first place. Rare doesn't have the manpower to support what is effectively a second version of SOT.
Would a completely separate BR/Arena game be cool af? Yeah. It would be.
Will it ever come? No. It probably won't. At least not from Rare.
I do think the "off into the sunset" version of SOT could be someone like Epic Games buying it and making a BR/Arena game out of it..but..that's probably wishful thinking.
