Thursday, April 10, 2008

Pirates of the Burning Sea: Dev Chat Log

Welcome to WarCry's War Council! Today we are pleased to have the developers of Pirates of the Burning Seas here to chat about "> Welcome to WarCry's War Council! Today we are pleased to have the developers of Pirates of the Burning Seas here to chat about
sailing the high seas in the biggest MMO launch of 2008.! Remember that while the chat is going on you can join the general chat in "> sailing the high seas in the biggest MMO launch of 2008.! Remember that while the chat is going on you can join the general chat in
#warcry.
Questions can be submitted to [QT]Otters by double click on his name or typing /msg [QT]Otters or /q [QT]Otters . Also on questions "> Questions can be submitted to [QT]Otters by double click on his name or typing /msg [QT]Otters or /q [QT]Otters . Also on questions
sent to [QT]Otters will be put into the queue for answering by the devs. The chat log will be available shortly after the event at "> sent to [QT]Otters will be put into the queue for answering by the devs. The chat log will be available shortly after the event at
http://potbs.warcry.com.
Now on to our honered guests to introduce themselves! Oh to help get this out of the way! I won the t-shirt! Just kidding :)
<[FLS]Aether> First, thanks to everyone for joining us today for the Pirates of the Burning Sea devchat, we are looking forward to your questions.
<[FLS]Aether> Now, for the introductions!
<[FLS]Aether> First up, we have Flying Lab Software CEO and Pirates of the Burning Sea Spokesmodel, Mr. Russell "You can call me Rusty" Williams.
<[FLS]Rusty> Hello!
<[FLS]Aether> Next, is our Lord High Admiral Joe Ludwig, the Producer for Pirates of the Burning Sea.
<[FLS]Joe> Hello!
<[FLS]Aether> David Taelorn hunt is a PotBS Designer, joining us today from high atop the ivory tower of the FLS design bunker.
<[FLS]Taelorn> Hi, and thanks... I think.
We've also got Community Specialist extraordinaire (and token Brit), Tom Atkinson-Edwards, or Rhaegar as we like to call him. "><[FLS]Aether> We've also got Community Specialist extraordinaire (and token Brit), Tom Atkinson-Edwards, or Rhaegar as we like to call him.
<[FLS]Rhaegar> Hi!
<[FLS]Rhaegar> !
<[FLS]Aether> !
<[FLS]Aether> And I'm Troy Aether Hewitt, Director of Community Relations. Let's get started!
Arkenor: Question: Limiting conquest chat to a single career has the effect of marginalising Privateers and Freetraders in the organisation of RvR, especially with regards to organising invites for Port Battles. Are there any plans to make Conquest a general skill (with a level requirement)?
<[FLS]Taelorn> Navy have conquest chat because it's one of the benefits of their career, similar to how Privateers have Sanctioned Piracy.
<[FLS]Taelorn> We're not currently planning to move it to a general skill, but it's on the list of possibilities.
<[FLS]Taelorn> Also, the skill work in 1.4 is changing things to make it easier to access some of those abilities.
Milkman: Are there any plans to make it easier to get around Tortuga? There are numerous quest lines there (including the daily one), and there aren't very good ways to get to a lot of them. The existing "tunnels" just aren't doing the job imo.
<[FLS]Rusty> We found the same problem in usability testing. Tortuga was an experiment to see what a large, epic city felt like. Practical answer: Too large and epic.
<[FLS]Rusty> We tried to improve this with Point e Pietre (coming in 1.3) but it suffers from it as well. The real answer is that we're going back and rethinking how we build towns. The biggest changes will be size and zoning.
<[FLS]Rusty> Currently, we require a zone transition to enter any room. That makes sense for large, complicated rooms that you don't frequently visit, but it's not so good for simpler rooms that are often visited (such as the tavern).
<[FLS]Rusty> What we're doing is going back and rebuilding some of the towns (such as the starting Spanish, British, and French ports) and redoing them in a new style that combines both seamless and zoning rooms.
<[FLS]Rusty> Once we get those built (they're after 1.4, we're waiting on some dev tools to make the art pipeline better for this) we're going to go back and retrofit some of the other cities to take advantange of this approach.
<[FLS]Rusty> That'll be the time when we go back to Tortuga and look at improving the navigation structure of it along with converting it to the new dual approach.
Unforgiven[Antigua]: are land based pvp options coming other than port battles?
Our plans for the Skirmish system support both ship and land-based battles, using the settings of your choosing. "><[FLS]Taelorn> Our plans for the Skirmish system support both ship and land-based battles, using the settings of your choosing.
Once we see how that works out we'll determine whether and how we want to add more land-based PvP battles. "><[FLS]Taelorn> Once we see how that works out we'll determine whether and how we want to add more land-based PvP battles.
However, we are primarily a ship combat game and that is where we focus most of our efforts. SO any land combat will be directed at complementing, not replacing, ship combat. "><[FLS]Taelorn> However, we are primarily a ship combat game and that is where we focus most of our efforts. SO any land combat will be directed at complementing, not replacing, ship combat.
Jethro[blackbeard]: Are there any plans to turn back on unrest decay?
We're planning to do unrest decay through the economy. "><[FLS]Taelorn> We're planning to do unrest decay through the economy.
<[FLS]Taelorn> The system uses turn-ins in a way that gradually depletes the unrest at a port, which prevents spikes and allows player-driven unrest decay.
<[FLS]Taelorn> That revision is currently in the works, and I believe it's in 1.4.
Milkman: Are there plans to allow us to eventually sell miscellaneous loot to a vendor???
<[FLS]Joe> Yes!
<[FLS]Joe> With 1.3 you can sell avatar items to any swashbuckling trainer

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Outage Compensation

We realize that today’s extended downtime was incredibly inconvenient for our community, and as a result we have decided to give each player some in-game items to compensate for the time that was lost. We know that these items can’t replace the fun of actually playing the game during those hours, but we hope that they will lessen the blow.
The items are:
6 x Bonus Loot Book
This is a consumable item. For two hours (real-time, not game-time), it provides a +20% chance to get double loot.
6 x Bonus Experience Book
This is a consumable item. For two hours (real-time, not game-time), it increases experience gains by 20%.
These items will be delivered via a small patch on Wednesday morning, and will automatically appear in your inventory.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Your Story

You are an officer…
of His Majesty’s Navy, a captain by courtesy, master and commander of a raw crew aboard an under-gunned sloop. She doesn’t look like much, but you love her like a mother loves a babe. Together, you’ll strike fear into your nation’s wicked enemies and defend your way of life in the most dangerous and exciting place on Earth. Your orders are sealed, the guns run out, the slow match is lit and your mission is clear… but you have to provide the courage.
You are a freetrader…
an independent merchant adventurer tied to no company or government. You are the fuel that jumpstarts the engine of a thriving new world economy. You are an explorer, seeking lost treasures, undiscovered resources, and deadly secrets that will bring you fame, wealth, and glory. Most of all, you are the master of your own ship, and your own domain. Others inherit fortunes… you will forge yours in the crucible of the Burning Sea.
You possess a letter of marque signed by the King…
and you are charged with hunting down and destroying the enemies of the crown wherever you may find them. Though your foes call you “criminal” and “pirate,” to your nation you are a bold hero and the epitome of courage. You are a privateer. You do the jobs that no one else can… and take the prizes that are your due.
You serve no one but yourself and your merry crew…
You live a life of freedom in the first true democracy the world has seen in millennia, sailing where you wish, taking what you want, and devil take the hindmost. Your articles are your creed; your cutlass and pistol are your most trusted friends. You are a pirate, a buccaneer, a brigand of the sea. Your life may be a short one but you will ensure it’s a happy one, and you couldn’t care less if it makes life difficult for fat merchantmen and glorious treasure fleets.
These are the stories you will live and play in Pirates of the Burning Sea, but every adventurous career tells a whole new story that changes with the choices you make. Who can save the virtue of the farmer’s daughter from the wicked plantation owner who covets her? Who can seek the lost city of El Dorado and fight to take it from the Mayan Navy? Who can recover the fabled treasure of the Knights Templar, or aid the Inquisition in their efforts to destroy it? Who can stop the depredations of the evil Sons of Cortez? Who can become the most feared pirate, the most daring freetrader, the most heroic privateer or the most honored naval officer in the Burning Sea?
You can.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Historic Map Winners Share Their Victory

On February 22nd, 2008, Spanish nationals (on the Antigua server) earned a prominent role in Pirates of the Burning Sea's history, when they became the victors of the first Map Win.



Mastery of the Conquest System is an involved process, requiring dedication and teamwork. A progressive system for capturing ports is employed. The method for 'flipping' ports (placing them in contention) consists of accumulating 'unrest' points by defeating enemy NPC or Players within a 50-mile radius of the port. Additional Unrest can be created by covertly arming the local citizenry who wish to revolt against the current government, through Small arms turn-ins. Once Unrest reaches the 5,000-point level, turn-ins are no longer effective and further gains are only possible via enemy kills within the 50-mile radius. When Unrest hits the 10,000 mark, the contested port goes into full PvP mode and is scheduled for a Port Battle. Once scheduled, the contending nations can generate additional points by sinking enemy ships in the area, in order to gain a geographical advantage in the ensuing Port Battle.



The final victor in a Port Battle 'captures' (wins control of) that port. Each controlled port is worth ten points to the winning nation, while any port lost to an opposing faction subtracts ten points from the losing side's score. A nation must accumulate a minimum of 300 points to Win the Map, through capturing and controlling opposing nation's ports - while losing as few as possible of their own.






mmoBay





Within seven weeks of the game's pre-boarding launch date (January 7th), 'The Alliance' of Spain had realized that goal, after a lengthy, coordinated campaign. Recently, representatives from several of the societies that were engaged in the historic endeavor gathered to recount their experiences - and to tell a bit about some of those whom spearheaded The Win...



As we begin, please introduce yourselves with a brief description of your respective societies:



[SGCO] Jaruuk: SG started in WW2 Online. We've been around for 7 years. Since then we have been in Planetside, Star Wars Galaxies, WoW, LotRO, many FPS titles, EVE, PotBS and beta testing several to-be-released titles.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: I am the Sturmgrenadier PotBS Operations officer as well as the Liason Officer to the Alliance. I have been with SG for 3 years.

Dor: (what does 'SG' stand for?)

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Sturmgrenadier, German for "Storm Troopers"

[SGCO] Jaruuk: Nothing behind the name except the founders thought it sounded cool. ;) Most of the command staff has a military background. We run things in a military fashion with the Portal CO's being a sort of democratic dictator. SG is made up of all sorts of gamers, from hardcore to casual.

[SGCO] Jaruuk: I've been with SG for 7 years and started many of the portals. SG charges an annual fee of $12 ($1/month). This ensures a commitment and pays for our dedicated server that hosts FPS tournaments and our massive Teamspeak infrastructure. We also have Xmas giveaways. :) Average SG age is about 32. That's all from me. :D



[BDM] TR Baron: Hi I'm 'TR Baron', one of the founding members of BDM - Bastados Del Mar, Spanish for 'Bastards of the Sea'. We started out as a group of players from a much 'older' group of players from another game (ANZACs from WWIIOL). We're mostly from Australia and New zealand but now also have a fair few from places all over the world. By 'older' I'm not talking about age of players but age of the 'group' ;)

[BDM] TR Baron: BDM's membership isn't as large as SG and OTG. We only have around 50 active members, but we try and be as effective as we can with what we have. We have an average age that would be similar to SG there, too.



[OTG] Gavin Casteel: Old Timers Guild (OTG) is a very large guild with about 5000 members registered and hundreds active at all times. We started when DDO came out and formed up mostly as a place for many old timer D&Ders seeking to find like-minded souls and avoid gaming with kids and less mature players. It was of course an instant success and now we are huge and have chapters for about every MMO that has come out since. I am Gavin Casteel, and Rafael De Vega and I are the Fleet Commanders of OTG, which means we are the ones in charge of the PVP side of our chapter's involvement in POTBS. Cresley Rumgut is our chapter leader in POTBS. OTG POTBS membership is around 200, and we have between 50-60 online during our peak times usually.



{ULA} Tyrien: Well, it seems like I got voted to introduce the 'United Legion of the Armada'. We are a relatively small society, but we are just the Pirates of the Burning Sea off-shoot from a larger clan playing other games. The original clan is roughly five years old and our players are all eighteen plus.



[OTG] Rafael De Vega: OTG average age is in the 30s also. Our relative ages may be a huge factor in why our alliance has worked so well.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: And it HAS worked well :)

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: OTG has a Minimum age of 25 membership requirement in fact :)

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: We are a collection of crusty old bastards lol

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Aye

{ULA} Drago: lol, same



[RED} Sabroso: I'm Juan Sabroso, a regular grunt of Redemption. I'm just here to soak up info.

[RED} Granato: Redemption was born in Shadowbane beta. Before PotBS came out, most of us were playing WoW - though we have a few members in other endeavors. I'd say we have about 40-50 people in PotBS - some of whom are new to Redemption with this game.

[RED} Sabroso: I'm one of the new guys.

[RED} Granato: So, we're one of the smaller pieces of the alliance in numbers but we try to pull our own weight. I'm one of the Senators of Redemption. We don't have any dues. We are lead by a Senate of about 6 people - a few members are promoted to be Senate advisors. We accept new people (usually over 18 yrs of age), but they have to go through seekership to become members. I'd estimate that about 1/3 of our membership is currently playing PotBS with some regularity with us atm.



What brought you all together initially? How was the decision to ally formed?



[RED} Granato: I got an email from someone in OTG first, asking what server we were planning to play on. We had decided we wanted to play Spanish, but hadn't chosen a server yet, so this was the beginning of alliance for Redemption.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Me.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: Btw El Tiborun is one of the leaders of LAP and LAP has been a presence in our Alliance since the start. Since they do not have a rep here right now I just wanted to mention them.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: We kind of collectively started seeking out each other during pre-release to see who all was going to play Spanish on Antigua. A lot of the early intros came from the PotBS forums and PM's.

[RED} Granato: Yeah, a few emails back and forth between, at least OTG, Sturm and Redemption, at least in beginning.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: The 2 week downtime between beta and prelaunch was when we more or less "found" each other and started forming the alliance.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: For us the process of finding guilds we were interested in sharing a server with, started in Open Beta. I know Rafael put in a good bit of effort seeking to get to know some other societies and researching their websites and histories to find some likely fits. There was luck involved in our finding each other, but also some hard work and research.

[BDM] TR Baron: Kudos to SG for running the alliance forum and TS server too.

{ULA} Tyrien: Aye, it aided a great deal in the area of communication.

[RED} Granato: Agreed, SG had the infrastructure that helped overcome the obstacle of not knowing each other and how to coordinate.



What did you find the greatest hurdle to be, when trying to coordinate several, disparate groups towards a common goal?



[OTG] Gavin Casteel: SG deserves tremendous credit for helping us overcome those hurdles with ease.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Making sure, early on, that every one understood that even though we were hosting the comms and forums, that it was an "Alliance Show", not an SG Show.

[RED} Granato: We were happy to find like-minded people - more mature gamers who knew what it takes to do well in a game.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Once we had the forums and comms server we got to know each other and everyone has shown great respect for each other which has kept us going through thick and thin.

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: We have always made sure that no one tried to chest pound and take credit for any or all successes.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: Nor take all the blame either. :)

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: All defeats are Gavin's fault, however.

[RED} Granato: lol

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Aye the maturity shown by everyone in the alliance is overwhelming. We all work as a team.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: Et Tu Jaruuk?

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: The Friday Night before release we held the first "Command Conference" on TS to meet/greet and set goals.

[RED} Granato: We already had common goals and philosphies and such. The biggest thing that worked in our favor other than that was how well we communicated and worked toward our common goals.



What was/is most enjoyable about working together?



[SGHQ] Jaruuk: Spirit of teamwork.

{ULA} Tyrien: Singing Karaoke in San Juan on Friday nights =)

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Everyone set thier egos aside and just worked as a team. SG has the better organization .. OTG had the raw numbers but we let everyone be part of it and make decisons from the start.

[RED} Sabroso: Seeing very visible results of the teamwork too.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Trust, we watch each others' back a lot.

[RED} Granato: Yeah, teamwork - no big heads (at ones that got in way of common goals) in the mix.

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: Several times we have thrown together groups from 3 or 4 societies to accomplish a goal.

[BDM] TR Baron: I like that even though Spain isn't the most populous nation on the server, we can be effective because of the alliance.

[RED} Granato: Yeah, even though we were the little group, they made us feel equal, too. Redemption learned alot about ship combat (teamwork) from SG.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: Just knowing that the guys working with you all want the same things and will work as hard as you, and with you, to achieve them. We all share what we know and learn with each other and support each other when it's needed.



Would you recommend the same strategy for other servers, or do you feel that your situation on Antigua was unique?



[BDM] TR Baron: Well, teamwork always beats no teamwork.

[RED} Granato: I think that our strategy is pretty universal.

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: We figured that everyone was doing the same thing.

{ULA} Drago: Same thoughts here.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: I cannot possibly see why a group of people in the same nation would not want to cooperate to achieve the designed goals of the game they are playing. It is fun and rewarding and greatly adds to one's enjoyment.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: heh, they at least have a NAME :)

{ULA} Drago: Teamwork and communication are helpful in any game.

[RED} Granato: Crucial in some.

{ULA} Tyrien: I would agree it is universal, but I would point out it's all about how the guilds come together. It might be a little harder in some cases because they might lack the infastructure SG provided for us.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: Our lack of a name and the fact our identity is simply referred to as "the alliance" I think is rather telling, in and of itself.

[RED} Granato: In the case of some of our opponents, I think maturity (not just chronological age) had a bit to do with it, too. What's that saying about old age (cunning and guile) winning over youthful exuberance?

[BDM] TR Baron: I'd also recommend keeping red zones around St. Johns ... ;)

{ULA} Drago: I agree with Gavin.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: lol



Which was your toughest battle?



[OTG] Gavin Casteel: *hmms* We may have to discuss that one a bit...obviously a loss would constitute our toughest.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Well we lost our first 3 attacks :) Those were tough...

{ULA} Drago: Yes.

[RED} Granato: Yeah, but they helped to cement our teamwork I think. Added to our resolve.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: Actually, after a brief discussion on our voice comms, we have a winner :)

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: I managed to lead a 3-24 loss at TB; that was kinda Harsh :D

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Fortunately, it was also the shortest :)

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: But the coolest part of it was that it was a devastingly one-sided loss in which we just sucked it up...learned from our mistakes and got right back to work. No in-fighting, no backtalk, no blame tossing.

[RED} Granato: Aye.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Many alliances would have packed it in after a loss like that. We had won some defenses battles so to lose 3 to 24 ... felt very bad.

{ULA} Drago: True.

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: I yelled at him on the phone after that one lol

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: And we even let Marc lead another battle again!

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Very true...and in all seriousness, the fact that these guys even gave me another chance to lead (later) says a lot about them, and built a lot of loyalty.

[BDM] TR Baron: It wasn't our only loss like that; the first Battle BDM led ended much the same. Stay away from the channels on the Havana map!

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: Not really.... Marc beat himself up pretty bad after that. Havana was tough until we figured it out.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: Aye, but we propped him up and got him out there and his track record is WAY bigger in the win column now :)

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Havana is the name of a Port battle map. There are several of them and they all have names...

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Gavin is FC too btw, focus on him.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: [censored]!!

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: LOL

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: No no, shoot at Marc not at Gavin :)

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Everyone is concerned that naming our leaders will get them targeted in Port Battles. But I think our enemies know who we are by now.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: It does, we do it to them...besides, Gavin's record is better than mine ;)

[BDM] TR Baron: Learning battle strategies is the toughest battle in and of itself, I think.



How many ships do you estimate that you burned through on the endeavor? :-)



[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Ours or theirs?

[RED} Granato: Way more of theirs.

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: 5:1?

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: I can barely tell you how many Port battles we fought :) let alone the ships we sunk :)

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: We are way ahead in SOL's just because they can field more.

[RED} Sabroso: I know I got sunk in nearly every port battle...

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: That's a Port Battle number.

{ULA} Drago: Let's just say a lot of ships.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: I daresay our open sea sink record blows away our Port Battle sinkages record by a large margin.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Ratios in the port battles were close ... maybe 2 to 1, but Open Sea 5 to 1 easy.

[BDM] TR Baron: Also quite a few port battles ended up being "avcom" which means that not all of the ships that showed up got sunk on the losing side.

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: Ok, Raf is correct. True, Baron.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: A key to our success in this was our ability to control the open sea. I will not go into details about how...but we always controlled the red zones and we won most of our 6 vs 6 open sea battles.



What do you think of the gameplay mechanics involved in a Map Victory? Would you like to see them altered in the future? If so, how?



[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Thank GOD Borsig's not here :) There is some tweaking that needs to be done.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Well, we hated the econ bombings and we did NOT use econ beyond 5000 points.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: Well I will be happy when FLS figures out their final version of the contention system and is not changing it nightly :)

[BDM] TR Baron: I'd like changes to the way 'unrest' in generated. I'm not a huge fan of "grinding" on NPCs to raise the unrest. I'd like to see a "blockade" ability added to PvP flags so just having your PvP flag on within 10 miles of port would get the unrest trickling in.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Better spawns; the unrest generated for player kill is still low (was too high).

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: We all agree that many changes are still needed. We also all feel that as long as PvP is the biggest factor in "unrest" then we will do well.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: We realize that FLS is working on it, and we just have to be patient.

{ULA} Drago: I agree that contention with player kills needs to be looked at.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: If they make the game all about fighting NPC's then we will get bored, as it should be all about PvP.

[BDM] TR Baron: Some things have already changed since the first map win. For example, contention no longer 'decays' automatically and can only be dropped by other players.

[RED} Granato: Yeah, the versus NPCs is not the strong side of this game. I think they still need to tweak that new 'no decay' system too. I think that it should decay, just at a slow rate.

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: I'm glad I'm not a designer. I only want to kill other players and make it count. :)

{ULA} Tyrien: I agree with Granato here - the decay should be looked into.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: I agree that decay should still be in the game. Decay is not the problem.

[RED} Sabroso: Personally I'd also like to see some incentives for Freetraders to sail cargo-laden vessels into the red zone, which would generate more PvP. Of course the reward would have to equal the risk.

[BDM] TR Baron: I'd also like more finacial reward from PvP, since currently you have to grind NPCs to bring enough cash into the economy to keep up PVPing.

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: Amen Baron

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: I agree with that also, Tr.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Very true, cash gets tight on heavy PVP ops weeks.



[OTG] Gavin Casteel: As for Victory itself. I think the system is overall well designed. The fact that 3 nations can team up against 1 dominate nation should allow for some balance on a server, even when populations and such are a bit off. If they could work on those other details a bit I think it is a great framework overall. The rewards , other then for pride, are also rather insignifigant at present.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: It seems to be a pure PvP game but many outspoken players seem to want to bash away at NPCs all day and all night instead of at other players. It seems lame, and FLS is sadly listening.

[RED} Granato: I'd like to either see more variety in missions or more reward for each so you don't have to be mindlessly bored at running them. Agreed that overall, the victory system itself is well designed. It just needs tweaks here and there.



[SGHQ] Jaruuk: They must figure out a way force PvP. The mission content is not a strongpoint nor was it designed to be.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Agreed.

[BDM] TR Baron: By 'force' he means 'encourage' :P

[RED} Granato: Encourage by force.

[SGHQ] Jaruu: lmao



[OTG] Rafael De Vega: The last point I will make is...that for a while, the best defense our enemies have had is to NOT show up and fight us. I think that they should not be rewarded or cause us to spend large amounts of extra time placing a port into unrest by NOT showing up - which is what happens now.

Dor: That has to be frustrating.

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: Extremely.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: Aye, one thing this Alliance all agrees on...we enjoy the challenge this game presents. Port Battles are called "Landmark" by FLS...they should be EPIC and Landmark...not unpopulated because one side's seeking to avoid PVP.

[RED} Granato: And we enjoy working that challenge together.

[BDM] TR Baron: Privateers, freetraders and pirates could use some work to give them a proper place in port battles too, where they're as equally valuable as having another SOL, but in their own way.

{ULA} Tyrien: An excellent point Baron.



I guess we've already covered the question of: what changes do you think would make a Map Win better and more of a worthwhile goal?



[SGHQ] Jaruuk: Yeah :)

{ULA} Drago: Yes

[BDM] TR Baron: Yep

[RED} Granato: We do it for pride and satisfaction - 'cause the other rewards (from FLS) aren't that great.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Again, keeping the focus on PvP and giving monetary rewards for wins both big and small... Such as conquering an individual port and for winning the whole map.

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: I was kidding anyway.

{ULA} Drago: I agree there. They should add more rewards.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: I think that a set amount of Marks of Victory should be given to ALL who participate in Port Battles, instead of maybe getting a roll on a few that drop during the battle. Etc..

[RED} Granato: I think that they ought to announce Map Victories and celebrate them from their end too - should only help to publicize their game.

{ULA} Drago: Yup they should.



Considering that it took weeks to accomplish, are you eager to try for another Map Win now?



[BDM] TR Baron: Well we certainly aren't planning to lose ;)

[RED} Granato: We're already working on winning the next map.

{ULA} Drago: Yes we are.

[BDM] TR Baron: Plus you need 4-5 map wins for the best rewards from the citations of conquest ...so :P

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: I'll let Jaruuk answer that :)

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: lol. We were going to take some time off to help our low levels and get some out-of-game admin stuff inline. Then we heard that the first Map Win was apparently a "Practice Run" (quote from a Dev "Joe") and we decided it was time to reenter the fray. Our enemies were getting too pushy in our absence and we showed them we were still around last night.

[BDM] TR Baron: To be fair, Joe has apologised for his 'unfortunate' terminology ;)

{ULA} Tyrien: Jaruuk is correct, in this sense: it almost feels like we are being forced to prove our victory. We won't shy away but it makes this next one possibly most important in many areas even though it isn't the first win.



(from a player): How was the handicap system implemented? Less ports to start, or less starter points?



[SGHQ] Jaruuk: I think it was less points for us - or more for them.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: I think so, France finished last on the last map, even though by rights it should have been Britain. Britain lost way more port battles to us then anyone else, but since we were often conquering a British port that USED to be a French port, France came out lowest. Thereby they got the most bonus points to start this map cycle.



Included on a dare: If you could be a parrot for a day, whom would you poop on first?



[BDM] TR Baron: Whoever came up with the idea of segregated Australian servers ..

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: hehe

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: Ouch.. yeah I feel your pain Baron.

{ULA} Tyrien: After deep thought, I've decided on FLS Joe. *fears logging on and being on a desperation raft now T_T*



In closing, is there anything in particular that you would like to include?



[BDM] TR Baron: Well I can't think of anything other then reiterating that the alliance is in place for our "fun" first and 'winning' second. Obviously the 2 often coincide ;)

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: One sec, Gavin is working on something Profound.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: For us, I think the focus is and should be on what mature, motivated individuals can do when they bind together and show loyalty, patience, honesty, and humility to accomplish their common goals. In this day and age of this internet community with folks more intersted in their frag counts and such, it is truly rare and special and it has been a great experience for us all.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: sniff...beautiful

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Brings a tear to a glass eye...

[RED} Sabroso: At least he didn't use the terms paradigm or 'think outside the box'

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: lol

[RED} Granato: Careful, you'll soak the wooden leg.

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: *bows*

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: We OWN the box dammit :)

[RED} Granato: I think flexibility might fit in there somewhere, too.

[BDM] TR Baron: Speaking of which, I hope FLS is keeping a list of frag counts. They should make a stats webpage...

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: No crying in the red zone.

[OTG] Rafael De Vega: Yeah I like that, Jaruuk.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: Yes, working with these guys has been a fun and rewarding experience.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: *beats Baron with his own wooden leg*

[BDM] TR Baron: :P

[SGHQ] Jaruuk: Seriously, we had some losses at first and we all got together and talked about what happened. We didn't point or nag or gripe. We simply hunkered down and went back at em.



Wrapping it up:



[SGHQ] Jaruuk: I have never gotten along with other guilds as well or as easily as I have with these folks. It's been great so far with the promise to get even better.

[RED} Granato: I agree with Jaruuk - would even look for you guys in other games Redemption plays in the future, as either friends or enemies.

[SGHQ] Marc Cinco: AND we have Bumble Bee sails ;)

{ULA} Drago: The sails are great.

[OTG] Gavin Casteel: The bottomline to the signifigance of the Map Win for us is the pride in what we all accomplished working together. Which is a very good thing because FLS really didn't add any enjoyment to the experience and greatly added contraversy.

{ULA} Drago: We like the alliance, which was forged by friendship and is bound by comraderie. We all have had a great time.



A huge thank-you to all of you gentlemen for gathering together (from several time zones!) to tell us of your experiences. It was a pleasure meeting you - both as individuals and as members of Pirates of the Burning Sea's very first Map Victory team. Heartiest of congratulations on a job well-done!



~Guillian 'Dor' Marshall

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Welcome Australia and New Zealand!

Pirates of the Burning Sea has now launched with a dedicated server for our Australian and New Zealand customers!



If you are in Australia or New Zealand, you are invited to download Pirates of the Burning Sea and participate in a 7-day free trial by visiting this link to the BigPond website.



As an added bonus, our Oceanic customers gain access to a limited edition in-game item, the Captain’s Cockatoo! The Captain’s Cockatoo is available to all new characters created in the first month of the Oceanic server, across all nations! All you have to do is create a character and the Captain’s Cockatoo will be standing on your shoulder to greet you.



mmoBay

Having trouble with your account? Then you will want stop by our Game Key and Installer Download Troubles forum for help and guidance.



Additionally, you are welcome to join in the server-specific discussions on our forums, where you can participate in trade, find a society to join, talk about player run events or share your stories of adventure on the high seas. All this and more can be found by visiting the server forums!



Flying Lab Software is pleased to welcome our Oceanic friends aboard, and we’ll see you on the Burning Sea!

New Devlog: The state of PvP

Player versus Player conflict is one of the cornerstones of Pirates of the Burning Sea, and the primary avenue for that is our Conquest system. We’re in the process of making some fairly major changes to the Conquest system. We wanted to take a moment and explain those changes, and the reasoning behind them. There are a handful of major areas I want to address: port defense, increased PvP zones, and PvP rewards.
The first issue I want to talk about is port defense. Port defense is not supposed to be easy. While it is not supposed to be impossible (thus all the issues with economic ‘bombing’), defense is supposed to be harder than offense. The natural progression of the game world should not be towards stasis, but towards conflict. You’re supposed to be able to defend ports that are important to you, but a ‘perfect defense’ where none of your ports enter contention, should be nigh on impossible. Defending your ports should, most of the time, mean showing up for the port battle and kicking some ass, not stopping the battle from ever happening.
That said, there have been two major things making port defense by unrest removal completely nonviable. First the aforementioned economic turn in missions. I’m sure you’re all familiar with the issue there, and we’ve got the short term fix in place. In the longer term we want to make the economic turn in missions a slow burn of unrest, rather than a bomb. This is not a change we’re going to be able to make immediately, it requires some serious work to make happen, but it will happen. The system to do so is also somewhat complicated, and really deserving of its own devlog.
Second, there are a number of ports where there are simply insufficient numbers of NPCs of the appropriate nations to manipulate unrest at that port. This is a problem, and one we intend to fix. Shortly (patch 1.3), we will be making a change that will cause ships to spawn much closer to their destination port. This will ameliorate the issue, but will not solve it. We will be putting additional resources into making sure that every port has a reasonable selection of spawns available. There will always be some ports that are easier to attack or defend, but it should be possible, assuming no hostile player action, to manipulate all of them in a reasonable manner and time frame. I expect this work to be done in patch 1.3 as well.
In addition to adjusting the spawn tables and locations, we are also planning to create unrest generating missions. These will be group ship combat missions that can be completed once per day, and they will be available in every contestable port. Completing the mission generates unrest for your nation, in the port the mission is located in. If your nation owns the port, then it will reduce all hostile nations unrest by the same value. We’re hoping to get these missions into 1.2, but they’re a lot of work, and it may get pushed back to 1.3.
We will also be modifying the existing Blockade and Patrol missions to make them a bit more attractive. First, we’re reducing their cooldown from 24 hours to 20 hours, to make it a bit easier for players who play at the same time each day. Second, we’re adding a small doubloon reward for completing them (in the neighborhood of 500 doubloons). Third, we’re setting them to be active all the way until the port enters contention. We think these three changes will make these missions a bit more useful to you. Additionally, the fact that these missions will be available in all pre-contention unrest states should provide a small help to the insufficient open sea NPC spawn issue.
While port defense by unrest removal has been impossible in the face of the economic turn in situation, we still are not seeing the number of PvP zones we want. In order to increase the number of contention zones, we are removing unrest decay from ports outside of the new player areas, and increasing the unrest generated by sinking ships by about 20%. We expect those changes to go live Friday morning, so by the time you read this, they will likely have already happened. The goal of these changes is simple: create more PvP zones more of the time. We will be closely monitoring PvP zone creation, and unrest generation following these changes, and may adjust those values again soon.
That brings us to PvP rewards. There is a lot of risk to PvP in Pirates of the Burning Sea, and we want to create some more interesting rewards for that risk. In the immediate future we’re creating a turn in mission that will allow you to exchange Marks of Victory for faction improvements with the various nation trade factions. But, you say, I’m a hard core PvPer, why do I care about trade faction? You don’t, but the merchants who build your ships do. Our hope is that you will be able to sell your surplus Marks to help fund your PvP activities.
In addition to Marks of Victory, we want to increase the individual rewards for helping your nation fight for control of the Caribbean. While reduced tax rates are nice, many PvP players are not merchants. Rewards for server victory are good, but that process is long. We want to build out some direct rewards for the players out there fighting the war. Toward that end, we are working on building some direct rewards into port battles.
On top of all that, we want to create some more interesting, and varied, direct PvP rewards. We have not settled exactly how we are going to do this yet, it might mean additional Mark of Victory turn ins, it might mean PvP loot drops, it might mean something else entirely. It’s a broad, general goal. We want to give you more neat stuff from PvP. We have big plans to add cool PvE rewards for some of the new missions we’re creating, and we’re going to create equally cool PvP rewards. Initially these will probably be obtained by turning in Marks of Victory, purely because that’s the quickest way to get them to you, but we want to create other, interesting avenues for PvP rewards.
That, as it stands now, is our plan for PvP. Increase the amount of unrest in the world, add new and interesting ways of generating that unrest, and add more incentives for conquest. In a perfect world we’d have all these changes out to you ASAP, but, unfortunately, all of these things take time to implement and test. We will get them out to you as soon as we’re able to.
We’d love to hear what you think of these planned changes, and any suggestion you might have for making the PvP experience better. We do read the forums on a daily basis, and while we do not have time to respond to each and every thread, your input is being heard, and appreciated. Thanks for your time, and remember, there’s no crying in the red circle.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Flying Lab Software on Pirates of the Burning Sea down under


Flying Lab Software's Pirates of the Burning Sea is a newly launched game adrift in the unforgiving and busy waters of the massively multiplayer online game market. While the game is already receiving praise in Europe and North America, we're still awaiting the Australian launch in the first half of 2008. GameSpot AU caught up with developer and cofounder Russell Williams to discuss regional subscription models, the sale of giant novelty maps, and Evil Dead.




GameSpot AU: Given Blizzard's domination of the MMO market with World of Warcraft, how hard is it to get eyeballs on a fresh title?


Russell Williams: I think if we were releasing another elves and dwarves game it would be a hell of a lot harder. But the great thing is, when you're releasing a pirate game, people's eyes light up when you say the word "pirate"--people get it immediately. I don't have to explain the background or the understanding of it. People get excited about it. The fact is, Disney showed us with the Pirates of the Caribbean films that if you put out something good with pirates, people love it, and they're interested in picking it up and trying it out.


GS AU: Are you at all concerned about the Disney Pirates of the Caribbean MMO title?


RW: No, we've actually played the Pirates of the Caribbean online game. Their target market is much, much younger. This is a game where you can't chat without getting your parents' approval. They're really going after a completely different demographic. We really haven't had anyone who has played our game and wanted to go over to the Pirates of the Caribbean game online, so I'm hoping Disney will be raising a whole crop of young pirates that when they get older will come and visit us once they've outlived Pirates of the Caribbean online.


GS AU: We notice on the Pirates of the Burning Sea Web site that rather than offer a limited edition with a map freebie, you're selling two versions of a 45-inch map. What are your plans to offer the sale of other physical game items?


RW: We don't have plans to do that for the Western product. We've been doing a lot of work on getting ready to sell Pirates into Asia, and in Asia that will all be real-world money transactions because they don't do subscription pricing. In Asia they do it entirely based on always paying for items. Now that's not to say we won't offer additional physical items for sale. Just like that map which we think is a very cool add-on, we have more music. Our music is just fantastic, and putting that out there for a nominal fee lets people get a really nice high-res version of it and covers our cost for producing it, covering our cost both ways.


GS AU: You've mentioned that the subscription model works well for the US and EU markets with plans to roll out a more pay-per-item basis in Asia. What are some of the gameplay balancing challenges of offering the game's best items both as rewards for play and purchases?


RW: Asia is still struggling to work out what the right model is, because if you don't do it right, it really becomes lose for free, pay for win. That's kind of a bad situation. Our game is very PVP-focused, and we've got lots of things for the guys that don't want to play PVP. But if you've been playing PVP and somebody is just outbidding you and buying items that make them stronger, people don't like that. So what we're seeing is a model coming out where you can supplement the normal money you would collect in the game that opens up things that aren't such "I win" advantages. Things like opening up extra economic slots so you don't feel the need to have alternative characters to play the economy as much. That makes it a lot easier to balance. You look at a game like World of Warcraft, and it's very loot-based. The player who has that loot really does win, and in our game it's very player-skill-based, so even by allowing our transaction model, it still is not nearly as unbalancing because no matter how much cool stuff you've got, really good players can take it away from you, especially if they're pirates.


GS AU: Do you think offering the game client in Australia through digital distribution undermines traditional brick and mortar retailers?


RW: I think it certainly does in Australia! [laughs]


GS AU: Is there still a retail launch planned for our market?


RW: No. In Australia, purchase of the game is entirely covered by BigPond and is free for the customer. The thing we're seeing in the United States is the very strong retailers like GameStop and EB Games, and their business model is really based on reselling used console games, so we're seeing the physical space they allocate to PC games dwindle every year. The digital download market is really exciting to us. In Australia, the reason we're giving the game away for free is BigPond really has a vision for the market here for MMOs. That's why they're allowing customers to go unmetered when downloading or playing the game. They're putting all the pieces in place so Australia isn't an also market; it becomes a primary market for MMO makers.


GS AU: We've seen other Australian companies go down the same route. BigPond also distributed Fury here online. What are your concerns about distributing the game this way?


RW: Fury at one point was also free in the United States as well. The thing we want to point out is that Pirates is a AAA game. You can actually play it and see all the quality there right on the screen. The only thing I'm a little uncomfortable about is, of course, that I don't want people to perceive that we're desperate. I want people to understand that Australia hasn't broken out the big numbers. Europe used to have a metered system as well, and it really lagged behind the United States for quite some time as being the viable market for MMOs, and then they started getting more unmetered propositions, and suddenly when Guild Wars came out, Europe exploded.


GS AU: Have you ruled out the possibility of hosting Australian-specific game servers if there are enough Aussie users playing Pirates?


RW: We actually have Australian-specific servers.


GS AU: Why then do you think that Blizzard is hesitant to host in Australian data centres?


RW: Well, I said we had Australian servers. I didn't say they were hosted in Australia! [laughs] It's one of the things we've been looking at while we're over here. One of the great things about how our data storage works is that once we get the servers up to the numbers where they're viable, we can basically move server boxes over here while still running the service in the US. Then we can basically turn off the servers in the US for three or four hours, wait for the remaining replication of data, and turn it on on the boxes here. So we can move our servers over here with a server downtime of three or four hours.


GS AU: Pirates has plenty of user-generated content features, including creation of flags and sails. How important have these features become to retaining players, and what are your plans for LUA-style (World of Warcraft's user interface programming language) interface changes?


RW: Well there's two things. Whenever you put some of your creative expression into the game, it becomes a tremendous retention mechanism and it also makes the game cooler because there's all these cool flags and sails. When we were planning putting out the game, we were going to have 22 of these ships. Now we're shipping with over 60 because of user-generated content. Let's face it, booting up Maya and creating one of these ships is an enormous task. It has tremendously widened the gameplay feel for all the other players, and we continue to keep on going with user-generated content. Our Holy Grail is when we let players design their own costumes and sell them to other players. When we get to that point, I'll be happy with our user-generated content.


GS AU: Is that a feature you've made provisions for later down the track?


RW: Absolutely. It's something we're definitely driving towards.


GS AU: Looking down the barrel of 10 million active subscribers on your biggest competitor's books, how many subscribers do you foresee needing in order to establish and maintain a financially viable business in Australia?


RW: This goes back into the history of our project. If you go to the various MMO game trade conventions where we talk about how to build these things, a few years ago WOW had just come out and everybody said, "OK, if you're going to make a game, get your 65 million dollars together before you can even think about making an MMO because that's what it takes to compete." At the time it seemed crazy that very few people were going to be able to get 65 million dollars together to be able to do one of these projects, and I really think we've seen several games since WOW that have had pretty big budgets. We're talking 30 to 45 million dollars, and they came out and they had a good two or three months and started to dwindle away because they're trying to make the same damn game as WOW. If I'm making an elves and dwarves game, if I'm making a WOW clone, why would the player expect anything except WOW plus better? I've got to be offering something different to change the value equation. That's why I think what people need to be doing in our industry is start creating different tastes, different boutique experiences to basically differentiate themselves from WOW. We don't have the same kind of budget and the same kind of resources to have the kind of polish WOW had when it came out. But I guarantee you our ship combat is much, much better than WOW. It's sort of like comparing the latest James Bond movie, which is this gigantic, huge, elaborate polished production, versus a low-budget independent film like Evil Dead. You pay the same amount of money, but Evil Dead is fantastic. It may not have the same kind of music and lighting and scoring, but it's different, and people react to that.


GS AU: Russell Williams, thanks for your time.