SueMyChin

A Kindle packed with many factual books on many subjects.

Completely agree. You know what the response will be though (in fact, I'm sure this has been mentioned before) "It's a game, there must be some variation". The guns of the age came in all shapes and sizes and all had their pro's and con's. I don't see why a more historical approach to the armaments would lessen gameplay in any way. It might slightly confuse the newer, less knowledgeable (with regard to 18th century weaponry) players to begin with but informative descriptions and time would remedy that.

Who? I've never seen anyone who wants this... Even if there's one person do you really need to start a thread about it? When players say realism they aren't talking about time compression.

To all those people banging on about Gameplay > Realism, can I just ask why it is that you're here and not playing one of the countless other age of sail games out there? I'm asking this genuinely and without a hint of sarcasm or mischief intended. I know the reason why I'm here, I think most NA players and forum members do too but I won't bias the question or the answers by adding it.

I don't think it is really. Rather than talking about realism vs gameplay (because they aren't mutually exclusive) posts have for the most part addressed the issues you highlighted (The Lynx, the smoke) as obstructing your fun. Where I think you're going wrong here is by not understanding the appeal of this game to a lot of other players. The current community like the game specifically because it's realistic, if they wanted a more 'arcadey' sailing game they would all be playing POTBS, Black Flag or Windward. You may prefer to dumb it down a little but it would seem that's contrary to the general opinion. You have your own tastes and that's obviously fine. For example, I'm specifically excited about it because of the realism and the potential immersion, If it becomes too realistic or if you're struggling with the learning curve you have a choice to make about whether you want to keep playing. As will I should the game ever become too 'arcadey' and unrealistic. The fact is, this game is going to have a steep learning curve, however the devs design it. The posted suggestions in this thread are ways to either assist the newcomer or reasons why we need not worry about them too much just yet. This is a combination of the learning curve and the fact that it's still early in development. You'll have to give it time on both counts here. The game will become clearer in it's instruction and more user friendly with development. This is your opinion, which again you're perfectly entitled to but I get the impression that no amount of time is going to turn this into the general consensus.

Whether they gain an advantage of 50% less grind time or 10% it's still an advantage over the others. Perhaps if premium content was limited to players who aren't able to play as much this point may stand but the simple fact is that it won't. Players who can't play so often will still be playing catch-up on players who play 5 times as much, because they'll be buying the premium content too. The only consequences of it are GL get paid and players who can't/won't pay are at a disadvantage to everyone else. I appreciate GL need funding. I appreciate premium content won't be as appealing if it doesn't give the buyer an advantage. I'm just trying to point out that the 'as long as the ships aren't more powerful then there won't be an advantage' argument doesn't work in an open world sandbox.

You're still looking at this game like it's WoT or WT. Players 'skipping the grind' in those games is fine because you're going to be matched up before battles anyway, it makes no difference if the enemy paid to be there or if he spent 200 hours grinding it out. There also no larger picture, each battle is there to be won and no other goals are set outside of this. There are no advantages to Premium vehicles and premium account in that sense. Gold ammo is something else entirely. However, in an open world sandbox when the grind is making cash to buy, upgrade and repair ships any players skipping this will obviously be at a great advantage as, while the players without the cash are off grinding the paying players are sacking ports and attacking shipping. This is where the imbalance is. As for giving players with limited time the ability to skip the grind.. why? That is effectively the game, the 'grind' should be fun and should be mandatory for everyone. Giving the option for time restricted players to skip the grind opens up the door for non-time restricted players to skip the grind also so by solving one problem for few creates another for everyone to deal with. I'm sorry but premium content should be restricted to aesthetic content only in my opinion. Myabe you could pay for some unique things like to remove pirate status (with a one week waiting time from the time you first transgress) but any advantage gained from paid for content is unfair in one way or another. FYI: Devs have said (this might have changed but I'm not aware of it) you can buy a Prem ships but unless you're of a certain rank you may not be able to fully crew it. So you wont be able to jump straight into a 3rd rate from the off.

If a merchant was under attack from a ship with 40 men, muskets in hand, the crew would not be running around on deck with their compasses, they would be below where the musket (or grape shot) wouldn't be of any danger to them. Once along side, if they were of a mind to fight back they would be at the guns, where you could potentially hit them with small arms. The chances are though, they're likely to surrender if it comes to that. What I was suggesting is that only in specific circumstances would having muskets rather than cannon be of any advantage. We know this becuase 250 years ago they were busy testing it all out for us

When attacking a merchant with only 40-50 crew, most of whom are below deck, a cannon which you could scarcely aim at individual sailors would be of little use. Imagine going pigeon shooting with a hand gun. But when the ship is bustling with 200 men, a cannon is going to have a greater effect than a few muskets would.

You've just proven half of my point for me flip. By increasing the amount of PVP in Open World it dilutes the consequences of an engagement giving little meaning to them. Like you said we want 'risk/reward', with the inevitability of 'more battles' comes reduced risk/reward in the fight. With the caveat that non combat orientated players are disadvantaged as the pirates and privateers of this world are benefited by a system with onus on 'more battles'. I appreciate the 2nd paragraph but that's got nothing to do with my argument. Those organic areas that attract PVP will remain either way. it's the actual amount of battles that I'm concerned with. Which is why I bring it up here in the premium ships thread. Premium ships with unlimited durability (in fact the whole ship durability system altogether) is another mechanic introduced with the intention of encouraging more battles. Again, in a WoT style arena mode premium ships would not be pay to win, in fact there is no real advantage to them but in open world they enable players to fight more often which is an advantage.

I fully appreciate that, there must be a place for PVP in open world but it shouldn't be given precedence over any of the other roles. One of the most cited reasons for "more battles" in OW is players time and the game not consuming too much of it. This is why I think players would play an arena mode if it were included and I would be all for the WoT/WoWarships angle to be applied to it. That's actually what some of the players would prefer over an open world. It would be welcomed by those players and those wanting to learn combat without risk, it could earn GL some cash through premium ship sales and it would mean that the pressure for a heavily PVP orientated open world would be lifted to some extent.

I wouldn't have a clue and I would hazard a guess neither would the devs. Like myself, I imagine there will be countless players looking to try everything. It's worth noting that I certainly wouldn't want to be a trader if there was no threat of combat either. What would be the point in that? It's irrelevant anyway, if there are enough players wanting to be traders, crafters and explorers to justify going to the effort of making an open world then it justifies giving them an open world. All of the other 3 'professions' can be simulated in an arena style game with a 2d open world map, it's everything besides the combat that necessitates the open world itself.

You've stated on many occasions your want for low down-time between battles, the ability of players to get back into the fight as soon as possible, "players time is a valuable commodity" to paraphrase one post. Hence the reason we have durabilities and the like. However, this is not conducive to a genuine open world where player's will solely dictates the state of play. I'll add Explorers (which will be in the game) to your list of Crafters and Traders. Who else is there? Naval captains, pirates and privateeers (which you could argue are the same as either of the first two). That is 6 'professions' of players, 3 of whom would welcome battle and 3 of whom wouldn't. Why favour the 3 'professions' that want to fight over the others by making battles more accessible? That's not what an open world sandbox should do. In the age of sail if a person wanted to experience maritime combat he would join the navies. You could so easily have an open world system where players with a thirst for PVP sign on to the naval lists and are given commands, fully crewed and victualled ready to participate in large pitched battles or small sided attacks on the other navies & their shipping. Any players who share you desire for "more battles" can find their place here. You would then have a genuine open world sandbox without agenda for "more battles", without mechanics that benefit the PVP orientated players, outside of the navies. In this world battles will take place where there is reward > risk and consequence (an organic number of battles) as opposed to what we're likely to end up with. I appreciate that players will always want to PVP, be it because players have little time/desire to sail long distances or grind, chase targets or just because their friends are only on with them at certain times, that's just the nature of online multiplayer gaming, but surely an arena type system accommodates these players best? Games like WoT take the 'fun' part of WW2 (the combat) and dispose of all the 'boring' tactical manoeuvring, economics and logistics of supply lines. This is what we'll have in open world and that's why people are excited about it, I just think it shouldn't be undermined by a penchant for a system that's all combat with the context of an open world on the side.

Everythings great until... ..and less fun for players wanting an open world sandbox.. What I would suggest: Arena mode = More battles = more fun for pvp oriented players True open world sandbox = an organic number of battles = more fun for players wanting an actual open world sandbox Arena mode + true open world sandbox = fun for pvp oriented players + fun for players wanting more than loads of PVP

This poll has been 2:1 since Jan and they haven't so much as commented on it yet, despite how easy it is to change. Don't hold your breath.

I quoted the part of your post I was responding to (see again below) and never mentioned a thing about the superficial suggestions you thought it necessary to repeat as I'm all for them. If this is for buying superficial items and upgrades, cool. If it can be used to buy consumables like ships and repairs then it will be another advantage a paying player will benefit from.

What the last two posts completely overlook here is that this isn't a WoT style arena game where everyone, premium ship owners and the rest can jump straight back into a battle after each engagement. So what if you have two groups of players fighting over one port. Both groups are mostly destroyed in a battle but one group have premium ships (regardless of how strong they are compared to the normal ships) and are able to jump right back into them (as they're never really lost like normal ships), while the 2nd group have to go off and craft or buy a new ship before they can fight. By then the port is lost to the premium ship players. How doesn't that matter? It's clearly pay to win. Same goes for this... It does when it gives the players paying an immediate re-spawn while the others are off crafting or grinding for resources to buy a new ship. The mechanics of ship loss they have decided on dilute this advantage somewhat with the repair costs and durabilities for every ship but there is still an unfair advantage and always will be otherwise nobody would ever pay for premium ships...

The reason political manoeuvring and espionage come to pass in EVE was because it benefited the clans to do so and therefore the game. It was a massive part of 18th century life in the navy and it should be encouraged in NA too. Some reasons why I don't think it will be as prominent in NA as EVE (or the 18th century naval environment): You can't change from one nation to another, which is a bit of a silly idea in my opinion. I think you should be able to but as a consequence, you're now looked at as a Pirate by the nation you betrayed. This could be a downfall of what seems to be a simplified nation/pirate system. Premium ships (whoo, back on topic). The durabilities, premium ships and basically anything that the devs implement to aid their preference for short turn around between PVP, will only serve to dilute the impact of any action (I've argued this before ). As a result any advantage gained from migrating from one group to another (and the consequences that come with it) will be short lived and diluted. This is the biggest sticking point to premium ships (and durabilities) for me. I think it will dumb down the game, moving it away from the harsh world of EVE and stand to turn the economy as well as the clans & nations into a big side plot to the mass PVP rather than the purpose of the PVP.

OK, I'll tell you why you just wasted your time typing that up. Firstly, just because there are some aspects of the game that aren't historically correct (for game play purposes) is no reason to add any more, just because. "we have already broken the bounds of realism so using "realism" arguments are not quite as strong as when the game was less philosophically developed" - oh, well I want yellow ships, laser beams and hovercraft then... You know that reasoning is nonsense, you're well aware of the desire from the community and the developers to keep the game as realistic as possible without concessions to gameplay. I even linked to countless posts where players specifically asked for first rates to be "like titans in EVE". I'm sure one or two will want full clan, PVP encounters with everyone is 1st and 2nd rates but they're few and far between, we cant exactly argue for this on grounds 'game play'. On the companies/clans stuff, you're arguing a point I didn't make.... all I said was that the companies were the "closest comparison we could make". I didn't say it was a particularity close one or anything like that they're exactly the same or should be. The East India Company was a massive amalgamation of traders, merchants, fighting captains, political leaders etc.(sounds a little like a clan to me) they certainly had need for protection at sea and on land because they weren't always protected by the RN. (something your post over looks is that clans and navies may well be working together, or one under the other in game, so they may have the navies protection). They had full armies to protect their sphere of interest and yet they only seen it fit to build a handful of rated ships. This was my point. Unless clans are going to be bigger than the EIC and will be on par with and challenging navies, which would be absurd, then I'm left to repeat the question that you attempted to answer, "Why should clans of players be able to build fleets of 1st rates in game?"

...and I was talking about national navies backed by empires which spanned the globe. They were still uncommon. If we're discussing clans of players then the closest comparison we could make is the East India Company. The facts about the East India Company and it's revenue are staggering, even compared to the giants of today's global economy and yet they hardly commanded half a dozen 1st, 2nd & 3rd rates at any given time. Why should clans of players be able to in game? Eve was released in 2003, if it takes the same amount of time for 1st rates to saturate the NA open world, I'll be quite content.

You might want to spend some time looking through the threads concerning the subject then, as a quick search brings up dozens ( http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?app=core&module=search&section=search&do=search&fromsearch=1 ) of examples. It would appear your idea of fun and everyone else's are completely different.

You can't compare an arena style game with matchmaking to an open world where any ship can fight any other. There is a consensus that 1st and 2nd rate ships should be few and far between as they were far from common historically. 'The equivalent to titans in EVE' if I was to paraphrase. You can almost count on one hand how often large numbers of these ships squared off against each other in over 200 years. There is no reason it shouldn't be the same in game either.

What if it took you a week to craft or save up to buy the equivalent ship with 5 durabilities, would you spend the $1?

Yeh, that's not a great idea. It would add more problems than it would solve. For instance, you could chase a ship towards port X and have a friend jump to that port to intercept... It would mean players could theoretically jump around and never be in a position to be attacked.

You must understand why that is though...? Players see skipping parts of the game, almost as a cheat. In fact, it almost defines cheating in some instances - "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage." Gold ammo in WoT (before you could buy it for in-game credits) was effectively a cheat you paid for. It took away the level playing field and any player wanting to play from an unfair advantage is always going to be despised. It's pretty unfair when you're fighting against a kid who can't afford gold ammo and is at a disadvantage. In WoT, what exactly is the aim of the game, to unlock vehicles and upgrade tanks and crew? ...if that's what you play for (and some do) then seeing someone skip that whole process right to the end game sounds very much like a cheat. It bypasses all the bits players who can't afford to pay real money must endure. It's obviously not so bad in an arena based game where ultimately all you do is duel with similar levelled players but in a game like this it has to be done properly otherwise players with money to burn could gain a serious advantage. There is no argument that buying a ship so you can fight immediately without having to play the parts of the game others must endure gives you an advantage. Especially in a game where getting back into the fight asap could be the difference between taking a port or not. You must understand that concern? I'm fully aware the game must make money, there are however many way of doing this, premium ships are just one of them. So long as the players using them gain no 'unfair' advantage then there won't be any issues. I think the fear is that they won't be very popular unless they do though because that's why most players buy them... Before anyone starts, I'm not saying NA shouldn't have premium ships here, I'm just pointing out the argument from the other side.