Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Macjimm

Naval Action Arena Game

Recommended Posts

Kaos    368
12 minutes ago, Slamz said:

"Gentleman's Duelists" will still use Arena -- these are the people who just hate unfair fights -- but I like to think they're the minority.

They may be minority but I know a lot of people who used to duel to develop an individual skill that gives them and edge and ability to fight in the war while outnumbered against people who only know how to play while having overwhelming numbers. Pretty basic stuff that they are also doing within army training, they start from the individual level before moving on to squad, platoon and then company levels etc. But the problem with this game for me at least was that once EA launched, everybody was just fresh and did not have the experience to offer any kind of inspiring challenge even when they had the numbers on us because everybody straight up hopped onto ''squad'' level skipping any individual skill phase and they were instantly hello kittyed when we isolated them from their pack and had our way with them. So in the end to get any challenge you had to pm to your friends you know who actually are able to fight back.

Then again comparing popularity of arena games vs sandbox games I suppose majority prefers some sort of an equal opportunity stage.

9 minutes ago, maturin said:

And of course the answer has been starting us in the face the whole time:

Pirates who aren't a nation and are exempt from XP grinding and crafting headaches, but just sail around PvPing everything. But the people with plush Johnny Depp body pillows won that argument.

My little pet theory is that he turned this idea down including pirate vs pirate because the brief period when pirate team vs pirate team was available, certain organized group caused some pain in the ass for devs regarding reactions in tribunal forum because people imagined they are playing some united pirate brotherhood and that kind of ''team killing'' would not do any good for ratings when it's a known fact many players choose pirate by default when joining game and won't tolerate getting cannibalized straight out of the gate by another pirate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Red Duke    5,911

Equal matches big world sandbox "arenas" exist - in Arma for example. Teams are setup equal. What gives or takes the edge is the open world and how it is used.

IMO stamp size arenas are puzzle games. Find the right pieces and complete the puzzle. Miss more shots, or hit more shots, turn more or turn less, the puzzle is broken pretty fast.

Jodgi has a point with the "limited size area world" of Aces High but even then, and especially in AH, there's no equal fight like in an arena game. Fighting forces can be set equal but the fights themselves won't be. There's always a wing with more or less birds out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slamz    1,500
2 hours ago, jodgi said:

I just want skill based PvP.

And I think we've always had that, but the game spent a long time doing very little to throw players together.

I'm really interested to see how some of the new rules play out.

The rules of the old game with PvE missions, teleporting between free ports and enemy ships being everywhere including outside your own ports meant that you never knew where to find people. You want to fight the British? Well where are they? Who the hell knows! They could be pretty much anywhere.

The new rules (no missions, no teleporting between free ports, enemy NPCs can really only be found outside enemy ports and you flip ports by sinking ships outside of them) should hopefully throw people together a lot more aggressively. At least I hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kaos    368
2 hours ago, Slamz said:

And I think we've always had that, but the game spent a long time doing very little to throw players together.

I'm really interested to see how some of the new rules play out.

The rules of the old game with PvE missions, teleporting between free ports and enemy ships being everywhere including outside your own ports meant that you never knew where to find people. You want to fight the British? Well where are they? Who the hell knows! They could be pretty much anywhere.

The new rules (no missions, no teleporting between free ports, enemy NPCs can really only be found outside enemy ports and you flip ports by sinking ships outside of them) should hopefully throw people together a lot more aggressively. At least I hope so.

Nothing will change because human nature won't change, the devs are not able to tinker with that I believe as much as they would like to.

They actually did the opposite, provided a lot of ways to cheese your way out of confrontations and avoid fights.
You don't really need skill based combat system for gankbox pvp since it always ends up being about who can concentrate their forces/resources better so could have saved the time and done away with some kind of an eve type of clicker combat to focus on bigger picture straight from the bat.

Once the instance is closed and the weaker side perceives too little edge to win then their lizard brain kicks in creating panic and they flee reassuring themselves the old mantras: ''if you ever find yourself in an even battle you did something wrong hurr'' and ''these are not the conditions I am willing to fight under'' and point their ship at their fastest point to afk it out INSTEAD of risking 1 dura out of their 5 that they could grind back in 15 min for a potentially thrilling and fun fight because hunters might get complacent. Many just roll over to die and their only motivation seems to be to waste your time by running away and dragging it out as long as possible just to grief the hunters out of spite (I wish they actually had other motivations like waiting for their friends to reach the battle site via time compressed os for revenge ganks (super realistic phenomenon and tactic that happened often in Age of Sail period, look it up in books) or pin the hunters and trade time for other strategical reasons) because sealing the deal can take quite some time when victims scatter in all directions and running itself is not a problem but it takes silly amount of time per battle to reach the conclusion while the outcome is already clear long time ago, most of the times decided already on the os before instance is initiated.

In arena there's no strategical reason to run (maybe there will be if they implement different scenarios) yet people still ran in sea trials (not even for tactical reasons) so devs had to implement a circle around the battle that started to shrink after certain time to keep human nature to grief in check. Before EA wipe we had redeemables to get as many ships as we want because people thought it would result in some ultra epic armageddon battles but it was still the same old even with unlimited duras. 1 durabilities will only make a lot of people more cautious and it actually ironically starts making sense for once to run from anything slightly threatening.

Some people enjoy these never-ending-always-the-same cat and mouse hide-and-seek chases even from the 1000th time perspective but I believe majority of people do not have time for it in this day and age where time is money and just want to cut the bs fluff and get to business (fun). There is a reason why ultra realistic games where you have to sit in a bush/gate/sea for hours for brief 15 min of intense combat are not very popular and will remain permanently niche and to paraphrase SerB: ''If you want realism, join the army'' or navy in this context.

Yet for OW to survive it needs people more than arena does because technically you need minimum 2 people to have a 1v1 in arena and OW won't hang on an epic combat system alone while everything else is lacking. I would so play OW if they actually manage to get it right but then again the things that we find fun (heavy loss for mistakes that should ideally motivate people to actually improve their shit) might result in only you and me 1v1'ing it out on a map made for 1000's of players :DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blackjack Morgan    1,001

I'm very excited to hear about this! Just because something is an "arena" style game does not mean it has to be shallow or unrewarding to play. I think there is a lot of room to flesh it out and make it very interesting and competitive. That's not to say I didn't enjoy open world pvp, at least conceptually, but the direction of where NA has decided to go just doesn't mesh with my play-style. I have been a long time tester and invested many, many hours into the game so it does make me sad....but I got a hell of a lot of enjoyment out of it over the years. I simply do not enjoy games that put a premium on grinding and massive timesinks in order to actually participate in those aspects of the game I do enjoy...pvp. I'm not bitter and I wish the developers and community all the best...I just don't think the new direction is for me. However, this Naval Action Legends might be a hell of a lot of fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kaos    368
On 4/24/2017 at 9:03 PM, Slamz said:

There is certainly a question as to what makes CSGO endure while games like Blackwake and Icarus die out quickly. For that matter, hordes of AAA MMORPG titles have come and gone while Counterstrike lives on, with only minor updates to its original format.

Although there's probably something inherent in FPS games that makes them more timeless. Really there's not a great incentive to switch away from CSGO when every other shooter is pretty much the exact same game with a slightly different theme/skin -- especially if what you really care about is the FPS shooter combat and not vehicles and other things other games add on.

Is Naval Action the "CSGO" of big ship combat arenas?

I suppose it's possible.

I will be very surprised.

My suspicion is that FPS games deliver a sense of tension and immersion through adrenaline -- it's the twitch and the immediacy of combat that makes people come back for more. A slow paced game like this will never have that. I believe the lasting sense of tension and immersion in a game like this comes from having something on the line -- real risk, real meaning, longer term consequences. And that requires a wider open world to give meaning to the battles.

I think that's the only way you keep ship battles fun for a year: by making it consequential.

EVE is probably the perfect example of this. EVE has probably the most boring combat ever invented. The actual mechanics of it are dead simple, requiring very little user input. There's good strategy on a group vs group level but as an individual player in a typical warship, your input and tactics are almost zero. But EVE has thrived for ages based on the combat always being consequential. There's always a bigger picture and more at stake. "EVE: Arena" involving canned battles with just ships and no context is not something I can envision being popular for more than a few months. I'm sure a lot of people would check it out and play with it but I'd expect interest to drop like a stone after about 2 months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxix7NJKN0

Here's some guy trying to explain what makes games like cs:go popular and tick from a design point of view.
disclaimer: never played cs:go nor any mobas. It seems to come down to dynamic player interaction and emergent gameplay.
I suppose matchmaker made CS:GO what it is today, it tries to bunch up players with similar skill level against each other instead of noobs being at the mercy of some dude who has played the game for 5+ years and you cannot underestimate the bait of skins and other vanity items.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdkDjsBiO58

Here's the pioneering arena game that started it all, the multiplayer was added as a secondary feature to what was supposed to be a simple single player shooter game but it grew out to to be one of the highest skill ceiling games in gaming history by an accident with the help of having ahead-of-the-time tech. What made this game so long lasting? The fact that there was always someone better without the devs needing to add more content (more difficult bosses) who was able to control the map more and manipulate the given tools better. Every weapon had it's situational use instead of one OP gimmick overpowering the rest + every competent enemy having unique playstyle/characteristic adding variety to the game without everything resolving down to the same meta. Obviously it died out because they never added matchmaker and made you go against vets from the get-go.

Will NA be like this? Obviously not, they will probably just try to mimic the WoT/WoWS success and fail even at that but these games nowadays have nothing to do with original high skill ceiling arena games that had high speed calculation + risk management requirements because in modern snowflake era everyone must have the ability to ''win'' from the start of the game without trial and error learning.

The issue with OW sandbox rvr is that everything is pretty much similar to original arenas - collect resources, gain map control but the process is behind such a huge time-sink and competitive enemies are not likely to be found because pvpers are minority in these games and NA by accident has a decent combat system while previous OW sandboxes have simple clicker combat systems that rely mostly on stats/gear/force concentration that take a quite some time/organization to achieve + some simplistic button smashing rotations, neglecting much of the individual skill and when good teams emerge, they quickly realize that their enemies are just a bunch of ''carebears'' way below their league playing for different reasons which is okay since it's not a strictly pvp game.

Edited by Kaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×