MR_BRONSON

At the time of making the post, I did not feel like I'd have to, but something told me someone would leave a comment like yours, regarding development priority, and so I did end up leaving "Final Notes" as follows (in the original post): In general I find your point to be moot, even if I hadn't addressed it in my original post - the suggestion forum are for suggesting ideas, not for demanding things to be added straight away. It doesn't take a genius to realise there are many other things that are a lot more important and I even mentioned that my idea isn't even necessarily important. Making suggestions are for both, the developers to take inspiration from, if they want, and for the rest of the community to pitch in to see what general opinion is. Saying "they take valuable time from the devs" is not really helpful considering that the developers themselves would be able to judge how worthwhile it is. To respond to your comments further: Another invalid comment, really - if you read the post again, you'll understand that what I'm proposing is not an editor like Sony Vegas or Premiere or Windows Movie Maker ... And it's not a recorder like Fraps or Bandicam or a streaming/capture service like OBS. It's akin to Rockstar Editor, which has nothing to do with editing video, and everything to do with capturing game events so the engine can re-render them (like a demo in other games such as CS:GO) and the camera can be re-positioned at will, and the event stream paused/played etc. I recommend re-reading the post if you are really interested in leaving feedback. Regardless, thank you for your input.

Director Mode (Recording/Editing module) If you played Grand Theft Auto V on PC (2015) then you will be familiar with the Rockstar Editor - that's what I'm suggesting here, for Naval Action. Showcase screenshot of the Rockstar Editor in Grand Theft Auto V - source: Gamespot For those of you that don't know about Rockstar Editor, basically it allowed you to record gameplay without having to worry about camera angles or camera movement. That means you can press record, and play like you normally would, focusing entirely on the action, not the camera. Then, after the fact, you could use the editor to completely change the camera set-up, its movements, composition etc. You are able to move the camera around the scene, as you pause and scrub through the footage. How does it work? In laymen's terms, as I understand it, when you press record, it doesn't actually capture the video and audio - instead, it records the events that occur in your vicinity, and their status, and their status changes, as you are recording, and later, in the editor, the game engine reconstructs the scene, using the recorded physics events and character statuses, and stringing them together as a stream you can pause and play through (as well as reverse and fast-forward) like a timeline on a video editor. Because the engine is rendering everything that happened, (instead of a video file displaying what you captured) you are able to move the camera around, and set up movements and angles, as you please, throughout this recorded timeline. When everything's done, that's when you finally render it as an actual video file. Why I suggest Naval Action should have an editor like Rockstar's Ask yourself how many times, during gameplay, you've stopped and thought about how epic the current situation looks and feels. Like a scene out of a movie! This game looks absolutely gorgeous and stunning for a Unity Engine game - with its huge scale and detailed models (and sub-surface scattering on the water), there have been many moments during battle that I've wanted to record the blazing armageddon of cannon fire, smoke and ship parts - with proper cinematic angles - slap on some Pirates of the Caribbean music on, and enjoy re-watching my battle in cinematic glory! However, it's hardly easy to get good cinematography (even if you Ctrl+H to remove HUD) by default, and concentrate on the battle at hand at the same time. Using the Home button to go into free-camera mode is great for screenshots, but impractical for videos as you are unable to control your ship. If the system that Rockstar uses for GTA V could be replicated, i.e. ability to reconstruct a "demo" by recording gameplay events, so that you can set up camera angles after the fact, for Naval Action, I would be very impressed, and you can be sure many people who enjoy recording and editing gameplay footage would love it, and there would be many Youtube videos of Naval Action that would start to look like something out of Master and Commander. Ship battle scene from Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003) - source: Neogaf Some extra notes I do not think this should be a priority for the game developers, at all. Suggestions, as I see them, are literally that, "suggestions". Ideas that could inspire the developers at Game Labs to add to their game, at any point during development. I fully appreciate their right to disregard the idea completely, and I don't believe this is even an important feature - simply an idea that I, personally, think would be cool for them to think about or entertain. I do not claim credit for the idea, either.

Currently, Redeemable ships can be redeemed by any character on any server, but once you redeem it (on your account), that ship belongs to that character you redeemed it with, and can no longer be redeemed by any other character on any server on your account. There is no workaround (as of posting) for transferring your redeemed ship from one server's character to another server's character. Incidentally, if you want to transfer it to a character on the same server, you could always use a trustworthy buddy or clan-mate as a buffer/holder and just trade it with them, then back to your other character.

Yeah, I painted the red and blue in 10 seconds - the point of that image was to illustrate an idea, not to propose how regions should be split.

I agree with your sentiment about "Game development" being the number 1 priority, above player experience at the moment - I don't think anyone is disputing. All things considered, this new server is a nice quick solution to a population problem. I don't think anyone is "bitching" or disagreeing for "stupid reasons" - I can't speak for everyone, but for me, my input is just suggestions or feedback based on my experience. A forum like this can serve as a brainstorm. I think most of us are perfectly aware that it's up to the development team's discretion to handle the situation however they see fit - and we are all aware that our suggestions are totally dispensable (viable to be disregarded). Maybe I'm wrong and I just haven't come across enough comments that would inspire the same tone you're suggesting.

Proposal #2: Areas of the global map are servers Advantages Solves most problemsDisadvantages If you are making back-and-forth travels that happen to cross the boundary, it will be an annoying loading screen clustered experience Could be exploited (ships can use the boundary to plan escapes or ambushes) Possible that one "Region server" becomes full with 3,000+ players, (massive clan/fleet) which means it would be locked off for new people to enter

Okay. What if you had instant-sync for everything port-related? Resource stock (every time someone bought/sold, or there is a capture it's synced) Clients and open sea battles remain server-side. Money and inventory and player position is sync'd once a day/week Once they log in to a server, they cannot log in to the other server until the daily/weekly merge or sync What does this accomplish/ what are the advantages? Because ports are insta-sync'd, there is no splintering of community based on trading There are no merge conflicts for port ownership and stock contents Groups/clans can decide each day/week what server they join, so they can play together Reduced queue times (not as drastic as the complete division that happened today on the 26th) What are the disadvantages? Exploits still possible (e.g. bypassing barricades)Any ideas?

If the intention is to keep the PVP (EU) community has glued together as possible, while reducing queue times by adding a new server then ... ... mirror at least once a day Mirroring only once (26 Jan.) means that there will be a splintered community, and every hour spent on one PVP (EU)server (after 26 Jan.) is wasted if that person later on decides (because of their friend group) to go on the other PVP (EU) server. I have already, today, had an issue where a friend continued on PVP 1 (EU), crafted/gained exp over the course of 4 hours (IRL), and the rest of the group had already joined PVP 3 (EU) out of excitement of not having to endure long queue times.

It's a fair enough statement to claim that it's not worthwhile, currently, to invest time and resources developing a vertical slice/demo. I can totally get behind the idea that it's not a priority, currently, given the state of things (Early Access, unfinished game etc.). However, I'd argue that "for now there is no reason" may not be a just assessment - I've stated some reasons in my original post, and saying "there is no reason" doesn't really address them. I acknowledge that there are currently "many players" and that the "Game is healthy", which addresses the promotional aspect of my reasons for suggesting a demo, but I think people would agree that a "try before you buy" feature is a positive feature, with a good [positive results: time invested] ratio,

Yes, there is. When you purchase a game on Steam, a refund policy applies*, which entails a full monetary compensation, that you are eligible for if you have less than 2 hours of playtime tracked on that game (with the condition that you have owned the game for less than 2 weeks). The list of reasons you can provide is extensive, and can even boil down to "it wasn't what I expected" or "it was too difficult". I've been through the process twice on my account, and within 6 hours I got my money back without a hitch. Why do I still think a demo is more favourable than only relying on Steam's refund policy? Steam's refund policy is always viable to change, so there is no guarantee that people will always be able to rely on this policy to try the game Players don't tend to buy games on a whim, based on screenshots, with the foreknowledge that if they don't like it, they can refund it. In fact, not everyone has the option to spend money to try a game (even if they can get that money back). In other words, refunding is much less convenient than a demo, which is perfectly appropriate, as a refund policy shouldn't be overly convenient, but a demo serves its purpose as a showcase, whereas a refund can have a plethora of reasons (they serve different purposes) Still, relying on the Steam refund policy is totally viable, and I see your point, which is valid. *The aforementioned policy I'm describing is only accurate as of 21-Jan-16 and may have changed since then, depending on when you're reading this.

I apologise for the vagueness - what you saw was an unfinished post! I pressed Enter (meaning to start a newline and continue writing) but it had, accidentally, activated the Post button, and thus, it was posted, unfinished, and I couldn't delete or cancel action, so I have edited it, and added relevant information as quickly as possible - sorry for the inconvenience. That's right - people getting a taste is a great reason. Personally, a demo is a great way to test if my machine would be able to run it at settings that I like. Thank you for sharing in my enthusiasm for demos, something that seems to have gone extinct in recent years. "However, I don't think a demo is good for early access." Yes, I agree, it can be misrepresentative of the final product, not to mention chaotic and extra stressful for the developers to commit new updates to both the Early Access and Demo builds. However, I made this suggestion regardless to start the conversation.

Playable Demo via Steam (try before you buy) A playable demo for a game usually involves a playable showcase or demonstration (hence "demo") that is limited in gameplay (singleplayer only, 1 section of a level or map, experience or level cap), and importantly is free of charge, and has multiple purposes, but generally so that players can try the game before they buy it. It used to be the case that most popular games had a demo disc (usually attached to gaming magazines) Why I suggest Naval Action should have a demo Can my PC run it? (The main reason) Minimum requirements aren't nearly as helpful as an actual play-test, for finding out your machine's performance during gameplay. Everybody's hardware is different, with different drivers, and everyone's balance for Graphical quality vs Performance is different. It's especially useful for Mid-low end PC's, because you can tweak the settings to your taste and find out if you can strike a balance between Graphical quality vs Performance that you are happy with, on your personal machine - with no financial risk Promotional value From a business point of view, setting up a vertical slice of optimal "fun" gameplay can serve to "wet the beaks", so to speak, or be an effective way to let players get a feel for the game, and have a good experience with it, increasing their likelihood of buying it if they enjoyed it (over watching gameplay footage or screenshots). Trailers are good for promotion on video platforms, but a true interactive experience can only come from a demo. Consumer good will Putting out content for demonstrative purposes, free of charge, is a sign of a confident development team that is happy to have people try their game before they buy it. It's a rare enough feature in games these days. Piracy I understand that Naval Action, being an MMO, has little (to nothing) to worry about, regarding piracy, this is merely a general comment/sentiment. One of the reasons why games are pirated is because consumers want to try a product, to see if they can run it, or if they'll like it, without risking paying full price - it's rare that the people who do this then go on to buy the game once they've played the cracked version. It's very plausible that a demo can help mitigate some of the piracy, at least with regards to these types of people (especially because, as mentioned before, a developer has full control as to what they can, and want to, showcase in a demo, to make the game look and feel like a lot of fun, by setting up all the conditions). This "Piracy" bullet point is mainly speculative, I don't have any data to back the statements, it's pure conjecture based on logic and experience. Other games on Steam that have a playable demo Steam has a "demo" tag that makes it easy to find games with playable demos, and there are many games that have this feature, the top 10 most popular of which are in the following image Final notes Personally, if I knew my machine could run it, I would buy it on the release date. As it stands, I will (full disclosure) have to find another way to try the game (Family Sharing) for free another way, before I consider it. I hope someone can sympathise with my wanting of more demos these days (gone are the days of gaming magazines coming with demo discs of all the popular triple A games that year), I'd really love to try the game before I buy it.