SueMyChin

I proposed the same thing as Brig suggested a month ago but specified the payment system like "Pay £2 to submit a name request even if it's rejected, if accepted you pay a further £3 to have that name. If rejected then you lose £2 but don't pay the further £3. This means you arent over-charging a player when they don't get their name approved but the £2 pays the wages of whoever has to make the decision and is the deterrent for players submitting too many/inappropriate name requests.

If you'd read the whole thread you'd have seen It's not just the rude words players don't want to see, it's also the childish and inappropriate ones too. Like HMS po0opstick or USS Obama Care.. It's probably easier to create a list of words that you can have rather than a list you can't, in that case.

Then we'll still be sat looking at half a dozen USS Constitutions.... There are 7 previous pages with plenty of reasons.. I want to name my ship too but I can see why it's not as simple as 'let them call ships what they want'. Make it worth the devs time to review name requests, by charging for it (it fits in with the payment model of only charging for superficial items) and add those accepted to a list of all potential names, like has been suggested..

If you can name your own ships ( http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/1629-name-plates-ship-naming/ ) I think I may call mine ' Massive Bereavement'.

I think for the most part this is a problem with the nature of the current test. Small ships are forced to fight larger ones with infinite ammo and limited, illogical repairs. In OW a ship that can't theoretically damage the hull of another has no real business engaging it, at least not 1 on 1. Sure you might reduce his mast's and sails (a hard job when he is of a mind to fire back at you with more and larger cannon) but then what? Also, when supplies aren't infinite it will cost a fortune to kite and de-mast larger ships, you would need a hold full of shot and power leaving little option for anything more. Added to this it will all weigh you down making it more difficult to get into position to take on such a foe. A proper repair system where sails, mast and hull repairs were all separate entities (separate stores) would further remedy this as you could repair sails for as long as you want providing you have the materials. Mast repairs was always a slow and fairly ineffective process. Just touching on a few of your points... These situations with SOL vs frigate aren't going to be so common I would imagine, it just wouldn't be worth the risk of losing your ship taking on a SOL that you have little chance of defeating. A light frigate would just flee and rightly so. This is a problem with the repair system as I mention above a truer system would help resolve this no end. This was always the case, though you would be more able to skip shots over the water firing from windward (this would be awesome BTW) effectivley increasing range and mitigating the heel problems to some extent. This is not true, the French preferred (or were instructed) to fight from leeward for these very reasons and more. They would often use chain and bar shot to damage sails and rigging. This was a valid tactic and should remain so. It just wont be such a problem in open world. You're right to be upset at the current system, but it's not necessarily the masts that's the problem. There are a whole host of reasons why it's the best tactic for smaller ships vs larger ones at the moment, most of which will be void in OW. Just remember that this system is temporary and solely for testing the mechanics and not so much behaviour and tactics. Thank god!

When ships were made of wood and men were made of steel.* *except the admiral who was a big cry baby... Just jesting of course. It's just alpha testing... You will be a free man come full launch!

Yeh, me too but, as I'm sure you'll agree, it's more entertaining when it's closer to the reality though (back to bathtubs vs sailing ships). The key is to only add realism that doesn't detract from the entertainment... I don't think we'll have a problem convincing everyone that the removal of ramming wont detract from the entertainment though.

Agree with everything on topic ..but ... There was a lot of suggestion by 1805 that unless you wanted an indecisive battle you had to force the issue and get close. There was a man called John Clerk Eldin who wrote on the subject (particularly in his Essay on Naval Tactics) and since you mention Prebel, I bet this article will be of some interest to you. - http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/c/charles-morris-man-letters-numbers.html Nelson will have been well aware of the above and wouldn't have needed Clerk to tell him he needed to get close as soon as possible. He'll also have been well aware of the writings of another reference in your post, Sun Tzu, who said "know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss." Nelson knew the ailed force was not of the same standard as the British fleet, he knew they could risk sailing right at them because once they were in close, it was a forgone conclusion. He wasn't lucky beyond the fact he was born British and not French or Spanish. That's because Prebel effectively won the 'conflict'. If he was smashed to splinters by a 74 SOL and forced to surrender, I bet the crew who would have lost limbs and shipmates in the process of gaining nothing wouldn't have taken it so lightly.

It was never done. Think about it... You and 200 men (not to mention all the enemy who you wouldn't want to kill if you didn't have to) sat in the middle of the ocean with only the ships keeping you afloat. Why on earth would you risk a collision where you could cause irreparable damage to both ships, risking the lives of not only yourself and your crew but hundreds of others? You would never do it. Your argument is undermined by the fact that we even try to replicate factual scenarios in computer games. If it wasn't necessary, we wouldn't do it. So why were the total war games so popular? Was it because players didn't want "the same concern as a military leader" or the contrary? If we were playing Rayman or Super Mario we would happily overlook flawed-physics but that this game attempts to recreate actual historical scenarios would hint that there should be an element of realism to it. If ramming wasn't a viable tactic then it shouldn't be in game. It's not even up for debate. I've used this argument before but I'll use it again... We're all here playing a game about sailing ships, not just because we want entertained, but because we want to entertain ourselves by re-enacting an interesting time in history. If we didn't they could make the ships look like bathtubs and we could sail those around. Or fly them, since physics doesn't matter either... I'm sure the devs have an idea about discouraging ramming, it wouldn't even be hard. The fact is they probably haven't gotten round to dealing with it properly yet. What stopped them doing it in the 1700's? Firstly, I would imagine a brig would have little impact on a ship the size of ST, it would be like a car on the train tracks. Secondly, what would the brig be doing fighting a ST in the first place? The ST would simply smash it to matchwood with one broadside.

Yeh, it's a bit derpy like that. Hopefully hit mechanics on the masts and yards are improved with future damage models. Long term when one ship hits another ship or some other solid structure, there should not only be massive damage to the offending ship but also a good chance of carrying away masts as the inertia carries them forward contrary to the hull of the ship. This would soon stop players ramming each other .

There are accounts in this book of shot doing some strange things after it's hulled a ship. Don't assume it would pass through one side and sit nicely on the deck. I've no first hand evidence but Sir Howard Douglas' accounts describe something not too dissimilar to pinball. It's still a long shot but it could and did happen, especially in earlier ships without light rooms and other precautionary measures.

Yeh, there will ALWAYS be those who amass wealth and power but in order to do that they will have to be financially prudent and efficient. The minute they stop their wealth will soon fade. It's just the nature of beast. You can't be the most powerful force at sea when you're contesting with countries backed by massive spending power. You need massive financial backing to pay 300+ wages. That's why merchantmen (the only profession where you're likely to amass 'huge wealth' would only normally carry 50-150 men. Being economic and powerful at sea are mutually exclusive (and should be in game). What is the point? Unless you're going to 'balance' the Yacht against the Victory then there will always be disparity between the ships. No one ship has any right to be better than or as good as any other. The only deciding factor should be cost. The 'balance' will be supply (the amount of materials and resources needed to build the ships) and demand (the want for ships due to their effectiveness). If you artificially balance ships all that you're going to do is level out the cost of ships, take particular skills out of the equation and lessen immersion to those of us that want period accurate ships and period accurate battles.

What does that have to do with the supply and demand of ships?

This is where I see this game going too. It shouldn't, there is no need for it to but I fear it will. There are a few reasons why this game can be different. You buy a tank/plane once and it's yours forever. You don't really care how much you pay as it's there forever. In NA permanent ship loss and damage repairs should be a huge factor in choosing your ship. If I can get a ship that does the job for half the price and won't cost me the world to repair or replace I'm going for that one every time. The cost is chosen for you so the more effective ones don't suffer a supply demand cost increase. NA can be different. If prices are dictated by the players then it's largely irrelevant that one ship is weaker than another. It's still a ship and has a role, so someone will have a use for it, especially if it comes down in price because there is little demand. War thunder and WoT are strictly PVP arenas where you're forced to fight. If you're the lighter less armoured player you can't run, you're in a cage where eventually you have to fight, even if you know your chances are slim. If a player had little chance to win but was forced to fight we know they're not going to have fun. In NA you are your own master, you can avoid conflict (or try to) if you desire, if you can't, providing the game is made well, then you only have yourself to blame. The 'tier system' is designed for an upgrade and unlock game type where players grind for XP. Tanks and planes must conform to the respective 'tiers' as they're expected to fight each other. If they aren't competitive players will get frustrated as they have to negotiate them. In NA there are no 'tiers' and no one ship therefore needs to be, nor has any right to be better than any other. This means they can be unreservedly based on historical fact. There is no reason to tweak one in relation to it's performance vs another.Any 'balance issues' (and there will be some when dealing with designs made centuries apart) will resolve themselves in the market organically. I think there is a danger of people being influenced by games that have gone before, where arbitrary balance changes were common and sometimes necessary. They think all games must suffer them but they really don't. The realism and historical accuracy is what's captured our imaginations and the immersion increases with it. The beauty of the MMO platform is the ability to have often harsh imbalances and let the players work it out. Let them use their creativity to find solutions to problems, don't do it for them with nerfs and buffs.

You're always welcome to come and work from my home office if you like though

It isn't for realism sake. It's to enhance gameplay. I would imagine something will have to be shown over (or near) each ship to distinguish them apart. It just shouldn't be their name.

First heard about it here - http://www.piratesahoy.net/threads/naval-action-open-world-multiplayer-rpg.20616/ Forgot about it until Sidestrafe's first video on it.

I would propose you buy a ship from the open market with money (you start with some and you can earn it) If you lose your ship you buy another one with money you have saved up or you claim insurance (which would give you back some % of the cost of the lost ship). If you have no money put a side and didn't take out insurance then you can join a navy. They supply you with a ship stocked and crewed to fulfill their orders. They pay you a wage (and maybe you take a prize and divide the prize and head money) that you then save up to buy a new ship. The Navy missions are the fall back for players who lose their ships and are always available. Perhaps a friend of yours plays NA too. He gives/loans you his ship to do some trade runs on the proviso you pay him when you make enough to spare... There are alternatives to having an infiite supply of starter ships or never losing a ship at all that would work well but it's not us who get to pick how it will work unfortunately

This isn't WoT or WT. Grinding to a ship makes no sense in that context. They basically have to make ships perma-loss otherwise there will be millions of them in the game.

They've specifically stated it will never go down.

Didn't they say that this was in the game, along with better cannon animations at some point but it was too process intensive? ...I'm sure I've read that here. It would look cool and it's plausible on the merchant ships and smaller vessels as some of them were relatively lightly crewed <50 but the Man-o-wars with 400+ ...I doubt they'll ever get anywhere near filling their decks unfortunately.

A lot of his posts boarderline trolling to be honest. He took it upon himself to critique half a dozen submitions in this thread - http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/3082-naval-action-twitch-art-contest/page-2 and almost single handedly turned a thread about slavary into a flame war - http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/3154-slave-trade-preferences/

Why not? Ships never used to sail around with big banners over their heads and pirates were hunted to near extinction in a few decades.. If they are left in I doubt solely being a pirate would ever work. People would see you on the horizon and run, you wouldn't ever get close to a merchantman without having to chase him for 30 minutes first.. You think Sir Francis Drake would of captured the Cacafuego if he had a giant banner with his name over his head? Ship's master: "Oh, mi capitan! That's Drake, the British privateer that's been capturing ships all along the cost, should we flee?" Captain: "No, let's run over there and see what what he's got to say for himself..." The game would be much improved without knowing the enemy ship until you're within hail when it goes open world. Get away from this 'well, other games have them' stand point too, this is it's own game, it doesn't need to be like other games. If they wanted to make WoT or WT at sea they wouldn't have ambition to go open world with it.