Enemies visible damage Yes or No (Health Bars)?

[Charles Caldwell]

Ok thats also a valid point, ok then to reinforce the visual actual damage 'Broken masts, listing and hull damage' all visible either with the naked eye or with the spyglass... why not add some sort of damage indicator to the spyglass only. A vaguish method of informing the Captain of the damage inflicted but adding an element of detail and authenticity (with the Captain observing the other vessel from his command deck).

 

My poor example: Note I've not added the categories (no time) but the damage could be broken up into Sails, Larboard and Starboard, Rudder etc etc

 

[Destraex]

Your example tells just as much almost as the bars anyways.

[Charles Caldwell]

Surely only the Gun Batteries - and thats purely the %. I thought a scan across a hull would allow the Captain to judge a fairly accurate conclusion of how many of the gun ports were unuseable, and a educated guess that the gun behind it and crew damaged. The others are vague and broad in their assessment (Light, Heavy and Severe) where as the current ship icon allows accurate judgement due to percentage bars, crew numbers, sail percentage, number of repairs used etc etc.

[Ligatorswe]

Turn it off.

We should be able to see damage through the telescope/binoculars and estimate the situation of the ship. But I dont think that we should have health-meters for the enemy ships.

[Ligatorswe]

Or... A great idea Charles! A damage meter connected to the spyglass. Excellent idea!


:-)

[Charles Caldwell]

Or... A great idea Charles! A damage meter connected to the spyglass. Excellent idea!

:-)

 

Thank you Sir....

 

Its really just a written form of the damage the viewer would see, but far less accurate and clinical.

[RAMJB]

As long as the UI doesn't give me more info that the one I would be able to find out with my eyes in a real engagement, the UI damage report on the enemy is perfectly fine. A balance should be found so said indicator is not too accurate or gives away info you would have no way of knowing in a real engagement, but other than that, my vote is yes, the UI giving info on damage done on the enemy is perfectly fine with me, as long as it's not overly precise, nor it gives away information you wouldn't know just by looking at the ship yourself.

[BungeeLemming]

The problem witht non existing health bars is that noone knows when to stop shooting.

At the moment you can barely tell if your enemy is sinking or if he is in good condition.

Sure. You see the broadside status but you can not see how much shots he took or if he is leaking.

Also you cannot estimate how much guns are left. In a bigger fight its actually not easy to keep the intel.

 

In real life the captain has a good overview. He does not have to shoot himself or trim the yards. He has a plan in mind and gives orders.

But we players have to do all jobs by ourselfs. Sailing, shooting, planning etc. And still we may examine the enemy ship and estimate if we fight on, if we run or board.

The theory behind this looks nice. But I fear we lack the time to check the enemy ship.

 

Please consider that many (if not most) of the forum user never played the test. New invites are close (i hope) and you can have your own experiences.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

The spyglass analogy is completely flawed (as has already been pointed out) in that you had a bevy of officers to relay that information to you. You didn't personally need to keep an eye on the spyglass to receive reports on how the enemy lay. There's no reason to artificially restrict that information in game by limiting it to the spyglass.

[Baggywrinkle]

No healthbar for me please. Show us the damage, let it impact vessel handling so we get information from that too, and brief new players through decent tutorials. In reality you kept firing as effectively as possible until the enemy hauled their colours, or you struck yours. See absolutely no problem with having the same in game. Spy glass UI elegantly finds centre ground, maybe audio/text information from your officers would also work...?

For what it's worth, in the absolute carnage that fleet actions were, captains had a crap overview. Read any account of any fleet action and misinformation, mistaken assumptions, missed orders etc are rife. Something that Nelson was well aware of, for example, and planned accordingly. This is one of those areas where deviation from strict realism is fine by me. But still no healthbars

Baggy

[Johny Reb]

Again, we go overboard with the realism junkies. Yes! Yes! it would be nice to fight exactly like they did back then but we don't. It will never be like it was in real life. Don't kid yourself. Otherwise, you may influence the development in a way that will make this game boring. Not having the status bars (I refuse to call them health bars because they are nothing of the sort. A broadside can be on zero and the ship still fights. There is no artificial indication on how much water that ship has taken on and water is what causes it to sink.) does nothing positive for game play, length of battles, judging your success, being intuitive to new players (new players don't want to have to watch nunmerous youtube videos just to play a game) so therefore its removal is not justified.

 

I'm gonna use a fishing analogy. I like to fish but I'm not good at it. I don't mind sitting out on the lake all day without catching a fish as long as I know one thing.... that I am at least fishing in the right place. What frustrates me the most is when I go fishing and have no clue if where I threw my line is where the fish are. That bothers me immensely because then i feel like i'm wasting my time.

 

Its the same with the status bars. They allow me to judge how well I'm playing. Otherwise, I will get sunk over and over and over again thinking all along that I was doing it right when I wasn't. That would make me very frustrated and angry at the game and I wouldn't play it. It for this reason that games add tracers and smoke trails and such.

 

Most of the reasons I've posted have simply been practical reasons. Like all those mods in Potbs, sometimes to gain something you loose something else. Taking away the status bars may please the immersive junkies but will reduce intuitive game mechanics.

 

No one who wants to see the status bars removed have commented on my biggest concern and that is the legnth of the fights. Ignoring that point makes me think you don't have an answer to it.

[Edward Vernon]

What is the point about the length of the fights...they should be as long as it takes. Until the one side runs, sinks or strikes......15 minutes or 3 hours...it will be what it will be or are you looking for a WoT style time limit on all battles?

[Charles Caldwell]

What is the point about the length of the fights...they should be as long as it takes. Until the one side runs, sinks or strikes......15 minutes or 3 hours...it will be what it will be or are you looking for a WoT style time limit on all battles?

 

I agree, I too dont care at the length of the engagement..... I'm not into quick fixes, instant stats and results.

 

Let me use this analogy...

 

Two Bulls, one old, one young watching a herd of cows in a lower field. The Young one kicking the dirt says "I'm going to sprint down there and F**k one of those cows"... The older one chuckles, "Really, I'm going to stroll down, and F**k them all"

 

As long as it takes my friend, as long as it takes....I hope I'm not forced into quick battles because some players feel 30 minutes or an hour is too long a battle. 

[Edward Vernon]

I'm completely with the Admiral on this one......

[Baggywrinkle]

Another day, another ragequit threat. Sorry Johnny, we've agreed on lots over the last few months...but not this.

As a reply to what was meant to be, and seems to me on re-reading, quite a temperate post your response is what comes across as a little overboard.

Nobody 'against' health bars is against having information, we're simply saying how we'd prefer that information to be presented to us in the kind of game we'd like to play. It's all okay, you can still have your fish finder. As it happens, also as a poor fisherman, what frustrates me is sharing a stretch of water with those who don't, for whatever reason, bother to learn about the fish they're after, to learn the waters they fish. Strikes me as irreverent and to be missing the magic, the art and the skill of such activities. But that's by the by.

No response to the battle length thing because I don't see how it's relevant. They take as long as they take, health bar on screen or no. That it seems to be in the rough neighbourhood of half an hour seems ideal. If having a visible health bar influences this then the problem lies in the mechanics, not the UI.

Baggy, professional realism junkie

[RAMJB]

I'm with Johnny on this one but for totally different reasons. His argument is that "too much realism will make the game boring"

 

Well I'm quite of a realism nerd. I like my simulators to feel like that, and not being overly dumbed down. But is all down to a single thing: in real life with a good stare at an enemy ship you would have access to instant information that a game (even such a wonderfully looking and detailed one as this) will never relay just by graphical detail. Not only that, your officers will probably also be taking a peek and commenting on the status of the enemy ship. On top of that the captain won't be bothered with taking the helm, which can distract him from looking at the enemy ship, nor with operating the sails, as he has a crew that does that for him upon his orders. A captain would be focused on fighting, not on sailing his ship hence he could focus his attention on things relevant to the fight. We won't have that luxury on this game.

 

Hence, as long as the status report you can get (the "bar") gives information you would see with the naked eye in real life, there's no harm done if you represent it as part of the UI.  The visible damage the enemy has been inflicted and that would instantly stand out to your naked eye were you aboard in that ship in a real engagement, you should have easy and instinctive access to in the game, and such an UI helper does exactly that.

 

In other words, properly done, such an UI tool is not unrealistic -at all-. Yet we have here people arguing against it on the grounds of "realism".

 

Look, I'm the first one to understand where you guys are coming from. Which mostly is from previous games where realism was thrown out of the window for the sake of dumbed down gameplay to make the game "easier" and "more accessible". I dislike that approach as much as any other realism junkie, but that's no reason to throw away a mechanic that under no scope can be qualified as "unrealistic".

 

There's a certain risk in simulations when the realism crowd go too far to ask things to be as real life: Computers can't represent real life accurately. Maybe in the next decades it will be possible. Right now it is not. And it has happened in the past (several times over) that people think that something is "realistic" when it's not, just because in real life you'd have access to an information that through a computer screen you don't. Insisting on the "real life" approach is not always helping realism. It's only helping making the game HARDCORE. And hardcore does not equal realistic.

 

 

couple instances here: Flight simulators (in which I have a background of 25 years). In recent years there's this huge trend where people insist that "icons" or "markers" for enemy aircraft are "unrealistic" and that a game should represent only the aircraft with no "Icons" whatsoever. Because in real life pilots didn't have a blue or red marker highlighting the position of the enemy.

While that is true, in real life pilots have stereoscopic vision, 3D depth perception, both of which are impossible to relay through a 2D screen. They also had much better movement discrimination than what even the highest resolution monitor can provide for. I know it well, I've flown in real life, and I know how easy it is to see other planes at several KM of distance just because they "stand out" over the immobile background.

Not only that, spotting other planes in real life is much easier than on a screen but on top of that - you can measure closure rates pretty accurately too. Something that you simply can't do in a game through a 2D screen (there's no depth perception so if the target is moving towards you or away from you there's no way you're going to "feel it").

 

As a result those legions of "realism fans" (with the best of intentions but lack of knowledge and first hand flying experience for the most part) have forced a lot of simulators in recent times to get rid of any kind of visual helper to make other planes stand out better, and to better get a feeling of their closure rates and relative movements. And in the process, they've gone past the "simulation" realm. In most air simulators is actually much harder to detect the enemy and measure his energetic state than in real life. They're not playing something realistic. They're playing something HARD. Which is a totally different thing.

 

 

On another whole different level. Let's say I have a high end computer that runs this game at max detail at high resolution in a big-ass monitor. And I fight someone else with a low end computer, forced to play on low graphics and resolutions, in a smallish monitor. Obviously the level of detail of the damage I'll see is not what he sees. And the distance I'll be able to make out the degree of damage of an enemy ship is not the distance he'll able to do the same.

 

No UI helper= artificial advantage for the guy with the better computer. Just for that last reason alone, the UI tool to show enemy damage should be in the game. Just because someone has a lower end computer forcing him to play at lesser details he shouldn't be forced to play at a disadvantage vs someone who has a top end computer.

 

And anyway and again, showing what you would be able to see with the naked eye in real life means that UI tool wouldn't be unrealistic at all anyway. If properly done there's no sensible reason why someone would argue realism problems with it whatsoever...other than wanting to go past the realism to move into the "hardcore" turf. But then again hardcore =\= realism.

[Leviathan]

I don't mind the current UI that we have for testing and think it's okay as is. It really doesn't take anything away from the game in my opinion. It will be nice for everyone here to try it once the sea trials start to see how they feel after some hands-on experience. In theory it would be interesting to rely solely on visual cues but as stated many don't have the greatest rigs and highest graphics to see them.

 

Another thought that crossed my mind today was hacking. I really hope we never see that kind of foolishness in this game but I know it's possible with any game. I've played a few games in the past that were plagued by hacking where people did extreme amounts of damage or went into 'god' mode and didn't take any damage. For this reason alone I think being able to see the enemy health bar would help police some of this activity or at least allow it to be reported. With the UI you should see that their ship isn't taking any damage and that something isn't quite right. However, without the UI their invincibility could go unnoticed for a period of time and their victories chalked up to real skill. 

[BungeeLemming]

RAMJB, TY for the post wich I clearly could not bring to the point.

 

And thats all she wrote forthis thread imo.

 

Reality, sure why not. But dont pretend to be able to do all the work wich was done by officers and even more men on your own.

[Johny Reb]

Actually RAM is expressing in a more eloquent way my very thoughts especially in reference to the "realism" vs "hardcore" descriptions. He adds to my concerns and contributes to the deeper convictions I now feel toward it. I understand his pilot analogy perfectly as I too am a pilot.

 

I must clarify that I am for realism as a rule of thumb but recognize that this ultimately is a game that has to be enjoyed by all and many in order for it to succeed. That doesn't mean I believe in dumbing it down for 12 year olds but I believe there needs to be balance. Its for this reason that the devs don't give us control of every sail individually. They could do it but that would defeat the purpose of a game and turn it into a simulator. So, I'm not a realism junkie. (And if I offended anyone by using the word "junkie" I appologize. The point of using the word junkie is to identify those that believe in realism at all cost. That seemed like the best word to convey that idea.)

 

There once was a thread that many of us commented in regarding the lengths of fights. The thread was started because the lengths of the fights do matter. I'm not saying that there should be a 15 minute timer on it but to say it doesn't figure in this discussion imho is not being honest with yourselves. To argue the extreme, I would wager that everyone here does not want to see every fight last three hours. Right? Now if the fight turns into a chase then I'm perfectly happy with a battle timer that is quite long but even in this case we have issues. An unlimited battle time combined with a chase is a perfect recipe for griefing. So here again we see that time matters.

 

When I refer to the time of a battle, I do not refer to the battle timer but to two opposing ships or groups of ships coming together for a brawl to the end with no one running. Under these conditions I believe that the battles should take between 15 and 30 minutes from the first shot to the last and I'm for keeping it that way. I also, understand though that Potbs style port battles will take a much longer overall time to complete than these smaller fights I am commenting on.

 

So, again time matters. The lack of the UI status bars adds to the legnth of time a battle takes to complete and that will matter to most. I guarantee it. The most common comment i hear from my friends that are relying on me for information about this game is that it looks slow. Time matters to them.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

I don't mind the current UI that we have for testing and think it's okay as is. It really doesn't take anything away from the game in my opinion. It will be nice for everyone here to try it once the sea trials start to see how they feel after some hands-on experience. In theory it would be interesting to rely solely on visual cues but as stated many don't have the greatest rigs and highest graphics to see them.

 

Another thought that crossed my mind today was hacking. I really hope we never see that kind of foolishness in this game but I know it's possible with any game. I've played a few games in the past that were plagued by hacking where people did extreme amounts of damage or went into 'god' mode and didn't take any damage. For this reason alone I think being able to see the enemy health bar would help police some of this activity or at least allow it to be reported. With the UI you should see that their ship isn't taking any damage and that something isn't quite right. However, without the UI their invincibility could go unnoticed for a period of time and their victories chalked up to real skill. 

 

Regarding hacking, it's my fervent hope that most of the actual computations, etc. will be server side with the results only sent back to the client a la the World of... series.  Unfortunately, I think leaving any of it to the client means a game-killing eternity of hacks, anti-hack patches, more hacks, accusations of hacks (whether warranted or not), etc.  And I'll be darned if I'm installing root-kit like anti-hacking software on my computer to play this (or any other) game.

[AKPyrate]

RAM got it right.  I'm not a pilot, but a sailor.  There are many things that, being trained professional sailors (which many playing this game will not be) can pick up easily about a boat.  Furthermore, additional officers looking at the boat full time can give opinions about the state of things.  For example, in real life if you shoot away the forestay, a sailor would realize that the ship would have a very dangerous time tacking.  The graphics that I've seen, while great, don't have the ability to show these little details and have their effect correctly simulated in the game.  The devs already stated that they won't be 100% accurate for the sake of gameplay by allowing complete calms, so having a good looking status indicator is just an extension of that philosophy.  

 

As for the length of battles, I'm all for a time limit of some nature, even though it might not be realistic (here hardcore = realistic to some degree).  There are factors that would end a battle 'early', such as darkness, fog, etc.  Beyond that, there are the realities to face, such as I need to be sure when starting a battle after lunch on my weekend, that I'll be able to make dinner for my family.  I'm OK with a longer battle if I don't have work the next day (or later in the day), but my family is much less understanding.  You'll loose players by the boatload if a single battle could take anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 days (you know, if there was good weather and a full moon on this date exactly 237 years ago in the location on the globe where you currently are sailing).

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

RAM got it right.  I'm not a pilot, but a sailor.  There are many things that, being trained professional sailors (which many playing this game will not be) can pick up easily about a boat.  Furthermore, additional officers looking at the boat full time can give opinions about the state of things.  For example, in real life if you shoot away the forestay, a sailor would realize that the ship would have a very dangerous time tacking.  The graphics that I've seen, while great, don't have the ability to show these little details and have their effect correctly simulated in the game.  The devs already stated that they won't be 100% accurate for the sake of gameplay by allowing complete calms, so having a good looking status indicator is just an extension of that philosophy.  

 

As for the length of battles, I'm all for a time limit of some nature, even though it might not be realistic (here hardcore = realistic to some degree).  There are factors that would end a battle 'early', such as darkness, fog, etc.  Beyond that, there are the realities to face, such as I need to be sure when starting a battle after lunch on my weekend, that I'll be able to make dinner for my family.  I'm OK with a longer battle if I don't have work the next day (or later in the day), but my family is much less understanding.  You'll loose players by the boatload if a single battle could take anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 days (you know, if there was good weather and a full moon on this date exactly 237 years ago in the location on the globe where you currently are sailing).

 

A million times this.  I don't always have an unlimited amount of time to play.  Knowing of a specific and reasonable time frame in which, if I get caught out, I'll be back in port (with or without my ship) is important for playability.  The alternative is  your opponent suddenly going dead in the water when they shut off the client to go make dinner for the fam after you've kept them trapped in a battle instance for an hour and a half.

[RAMJB]

So, again time matters. The lack of the UI status bars adds to the legnth of time a battle takes to complete and that will matter to most. I guarantee it. The most common comment i hear from my friends that are relying on me for information about this game is that it looks slow. Time matters to them.

 

 

In this I'd say let's be careful here. Because a lot of people out there who are used to have fun in much faster paced games where a battle takes somewhere between 5 to 15 minutes from start to end think this game is slow there's no need to take things too far. Because this game -IS- slow paced, all naval combat is, and whoever doesn't like that fact is looking at the wrong game to begin with, and should stay a good distance away from it.

I'm understanding and I fully agree with the concerns raised about neverending battles. we all have real lifes, families to spend time with and real life commitments to attend. Of course there should be some sort of time limiter for battles not to drag on to unbearable extremes. But a proper and adequate balance is needed here because as we all know and as I already stated naval combat is slow in it's pacing - and that doesn't hold true for the battle itself but also for the engage-disengage phase. I would be mad as hell if after 20 minutes of maneouvering out of fire range to achieve the wind gage I finally get it only to be thrown of the instance because "timer is out". I would thoroughly hate to intercept a merchant, to give chase while he tries to flee, and 15 minutes later, when I'm closing in for my first chaser salvo, I'm thrown out of the instance because "timer is out".

A timer is needed, but it should be remembered that naval combat itself takes it's time. Both during the battle itself...and during the initial stages.

Anyway and regarding that, I would strongly suggest a "stop battle" button where if everyone in the instance agrees to it, the battle instantly ends. Would make for a much easier time to get rid of waiting times if both sides decide to disengage at the same time (or if one of the sides is fleeing and the other aknowledges is never going to catch up).

 

 

Oh ,and for the record, I'm no pilot. Not officially at least. But I have a  good share of friends who are, and almost everytime I get to fly with them I get a chance to take the controls. Landings included (if there's no crosswind, then they won't let me no matter what, lol).

[AKPyrate]

The timer should be reasonable, and yes the battles are slower than most gamers are used to.  I like the idea of a 'stop battle' button, if all parties  agree.  I wasn't trying to say that the battles should necessarily be short lived, but there should be a reasonable time limit due to the realities of life.  Additionally, what would happen if I got disconnected from the server temporarily?  Would I automatically loose/strike (and potentially loose my brand new frigate)?  Would I be able to log back on into the instance?  Could I hit a 'flee' button so that an autopilot would automatically make best speed and sail away from all combatants and out of the instance while I log off and do something more important?  One concern I have is the large blocks of time that might be necessary to play this game.  I'd really like to play as much as possible, but if I need to block out 2 hours at a time, in case I get attacked while transporting a load of beechwood across the Caribbean, then I'll realistically only get to play a couple of days a week, max.  If, however, I know that a battle won't take more than 30 minutes, I can log on quickly during my kid's nap and be reasonably sure that I won't be stuck trying to finish a desperate battle with a hungry, crying two year old on my knee.

 

As for pre-battle tactics, I think the time should be somewhat limited.  If you sight strange sail, say 12 miles from you, and are put in a battle instance, there's way too much time taken up with the pre-battle staging.  If you're both trying to gain that weather guage close hauled at a reasonable 5 kts in light-medium wind, it'll take 3 hours before you're within range to fire the first broadside.  I'd rather start a bit closer, say 1 mile (and assume that you've both been beating to windward at a similar pace), and have only 5 minutes of maneuvering for an advantage and then another 25 for the actual battle.

 

I don't know the proper answer to the timing issue, and I think it's something that the community should weigh in on(and obviously we're currently doing that).  There has to be a balance between the 'total immersion'/'hardcore gamers' with time on their hands and the 'working stiffs'/'family members' that want something that's fun, exciting and easy to log in/off for shorter periods of time.

[Johny Reb]

Well ultimately the discussion on how much time a battle should take is properly placed in another thread.

 

Most of those that I refer to are from PotBS which does have a faster fight dynamic but the battles still take between 15 and 20 minutes. I've seen 10v10 go up to 1 hour and Port Battles go 2 hours. Its the average I'm concerned about. Either way the point was simply, how removing the status bars from the UI will effect the length of a battle and therefore the point needs to be recognized as one of merit. A couple other posters responded to me earlier by saying that battle time was irrelevant. It clearly isnt. Now I may want 15-30 minute battles and you may want 20-40 minute battles. I wouldn't be hurt either way. For me, removing the status bars adds enough time to the current build as to take it past my "average" but it wouldn't with yours so it may be fine for you but not for me.

 

So the question to those who want to remove it is... how long do you want your average battle to take in say a 3v3 match? If its 30 minutes or less than this should be a concern for you as well.