SueMyChin

I would be happy for this so long as the ships were no larger than a small frigate and they were permanently lost when sunk of captured.

If you're not able to utilize them them that's you're problem. They are a good point of reference for firing at ships where the range is varying insignificantly. Speak for yourself. That the majority of the voters want it is justification enough not to mention that several valid reasons have been presented for their removal throughout the previous 10 pages of discussion. Not only are you attempting to undermine the whole forum and validity of player feedback but it's a little partronising of you to tell the admin how to use the information they gather here too. A little more decorum next time perhaps, sir

Personally, I think you should get the full remaining damage of the ship if you initiate the boarding and half if you were boarded but won the conflict. I appreciate the point at the moment is to test combat though. At some point boarding, capture and surrender has to be given precedence over sinking ships as it's the more common historically, useful and likely to be the way of it in open world.

I don't think L'Orient was armed with bronze 42's but I'm going to look for that documentary ..

I asked this question some years ago now and never really got an accurate answer, I'm now wondering if any of the history buffs of these dear forums could expand upon what info I was offered. The Question: What first-rate ship of line sunk, then had it's cannon recovered and melted down? I've been reading about the HMS Victory (1737) found by Odyssey in the English channel, 2009. They found 42lb bronze cannon, the only existing cannon of this type on dry land. Though they mention another ship with similar ordnance that was recovered and melted down as scrap. discovery.com - "The site Odyssey has identified is one of only two first-rates whose ordnance has ever been located underwater. However, almost all of the bronze guns from the other site were melted down as scrap in the late 18th and 19th centuries." I want to know the name of the above mentioned ship and have read-up on several first-rates with similar cannon but none mention the fate of the cannon. Was it the HMS Royal George (1756), HMS Sovereign of the Seas or some other ship.... Can anyone fill me in here? Some updates since I asked the question: Now, I don't claim to know any more than you guys (In fact it's very likely, much less) but the quote states that the guns were melted down in the 18th century. This would rule out the Cambrian (wrecked in 1828) and probably the Queen Charlotte (sank on March 17, 1800) ... It also states the other ship was, like the Victory, a First-rate, ruling out the Colossus (third rate) & Invincible (1747) (third rate). "The wreck is one of only two first-rates whose ordnance has ever been located underwater, the other having been salvaged in the late 18th century. However, unfortunately almost all of the bronze guns from the other ship were melted down as scrap in the late 18th and 19th centuries. " - http://shipwreck.net/hmsvictoryfaqs.php The link to my origonal question some 3 years ago - https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120302104832AAT0p0J If anyone has any additional info I would greatly appreciate it

It depends how you define 'discovered', doesn't it? If I'm out for a walk and find a crashed UFO in a field but when I go home and tell people about it, I can't direct them to the same place.. I can hardly claim to have discovered anything can I? There were ambiguous maps featuring illustrations of major unknown continents for anything up to a century before any of them were 'discovered'. The fact is they were too inaccurate or unreliable to use for navigation. What Cook and Columbus did differently was describe these places with enough accuracy so that their 'discoveries' could be tested. For example, you could argue that the Maori (or Polynesians), Tasman or Cook discovered New Zealand depending on your definition of 'discovered'. Maori were there first, settled there but never told the wider world. Tasman found it & recorded it but was both unable to land and had no idea of where he was (Tasman named first landfall Staten Landt assuming it was part of South America). Cook not only landed but he charted the entire coastline with accuracy, as well as knowing accurately where he was on the surface of the earth. The difference here is you could use Cook's directions to find it and have no uncertainty regarding where you were. If you followed Tasman you could be in Argentina or Australia and be non the wiser. If it can be proven then any of these explorers deserve their credit but let's not pretend what the British did wasn't unique or generally more worthwhile.

North East England, Just like this bloke

You said it yourself, you wouldn't want to play arena but then suggest players should be forced to...? Why make players do something they don't want to do? If they want to pvp in the arena then fine. if they want to trade and explore then let them.. The players who only play arena will be those who wouldn't play open world anyway... The players playing open world will be those looking for more than a pvp battle.. I don't care if there have or haven't been games set up like that in the past, it makes perfect sense to do it like that.

For this very reason I think, if they're both kept (and I lean towards the idea that they should) then they should be completely separate entities. Almost like two different games. Forcing players to play both undermines the point in having the two in the first place.

I guess war could fall under the 'extenuating circumstances' I mentioned and even then only wealthy captains and admirals would happily send a potential prize down without a hint of regret. The common hands certainly wouldn't, not to mention the greater loss of life in a fight to the last. ...though I was predominantly talking about pretty much every other situation you could find yourself in aboard a sailing vessel. Not so much Navies at war in large pitch battles though I do take your point.

If you have the URL of the image (this will be called 'direct link' or something to that effect when you upload to photobucket) paste it into the textbox that pops up when you click the button highlighted below. You aren't attaching it, you're linking to it so there should be no restrictions.

If we can't change the name on the nameplate then we're all sailing around in HMS Victories or USS Constitutions... While not exactly a game breaker it's a bit lame and I don't think for such a competent set of devs adding custom nameplates would be a difficult task at all. Surely this is a good thing? We don't want players paying no heed to the consequences of losing a ship. It's of course a compromise of customisation and moderating ship names while helping to fund the game. After all, if you don't want to pay in case you lose the ship, then pick a name that doesn't cost you or leave the name as is. So we end up with WoT suicide runs and millions of ships in the economy as they're never destroyed... That sounds horrible. I would suggest that if you're in a navy then they reissue you a ship if yours is lost but if the ship is your own that you've had to grind to buy then it should be lost forever if you throw it away.

I would say no to faith having any effect on game play, though missions & storylines loosely influenced by it would be fine. I think superstition should effect crew morale and your captains reputation however. If a captain is succsesful and takes lots of prizes (as well as sets captives free rather than slaughtering or selling them off as slaves), a 'lucky' captain will see their crew morale and captain reputation increased. This would make it easier to recruit and would make NPC's more likely to strike their colours than fight or run. It would give an indicator to other players as to their fate if they were to strike to this captain too, once they know who it is they're facing. A captain that often founders takes fewer prizes (as well as sinks ships, kills enemy and would rather watch his men die and drown before they surrender) would see adverse effects on reputation and morale. I also think ships that have been taken often or often needed repairs, that had seen better days (remember that a ship could never be made 'as good as new' again, especially if it had taken a good beating in battle or heavy weather) should also act upon crew morale. Perhaps if an in game inventory system is able to, keeping 'lucky' or 'unlucky' artifacts adds to this also.

It's arguable to say he would definitely know the captain of any given ship even in Anglo-French encounters but let's for the sake of argument say they had a list of every enemy nation's ships, with all their captains and gun load-outs. Did he have one for the merchant vessels, fisherman, packet boats, coaliers or privateers too? What is stopping you as a player from making your own list by gathering information in game. You could check in game naval lists, ask in ports "are there any privateers in the area?". Localised information could be a valuable resource if this were the case encouraing trade and cooperation. Not to mention what I've argued it brings to game play and approach tactics.. I guess you'll be all for handing the command of gunnery over to the mids and gun crews too then?

Thanks for the reply. No arguing about the first 3 then ...I would strive to keep focus firing too so long as it's not at the expense of game play and I think this is something that can easily be done. RE: 4. (Let me just qualify again that I would only make changes like this in open world and designated friendly ship names are always shown.) Let's say we go with the numbers upon button press idea. Once well within cannon range the name is then displayed instead of the number, as you're close enough to discern the identity. This would mean that players with reputations for being aggressive could potentially close in before the other ship realises they're pirating and flee's. If names were always visible then they would have to give chase for ages as players would run as soon as they're spotted (players could still run of course if they chose to but they wouldn't know if it was justified). You would have to pick fights more carefully and this would add tension as you close in. It wouldn't stop you from knowing who you're dealing with except in the unlikely scenario where you have a long range engagement (with limited ammo that costs you each time it's fired, yeah right...) and then someone runs or founders. Let's be honest, if you ever came to blows, ultimately someone would close to within hailing distance to either board, capture or to get better shots in and then their name would be revealed. Personally, I would argue strongly for an 'area chat' so long as the catchment area was the same range at which the players name was revealed. That way you could swap info, trade, ask for favors/supplies, press crew etc. with a separate port/town chat and maybe an anonymous global.. Like I mentioned earlier though, this debate should not be seen as having any bearing on future decisions, the old slippery-slope argument

Hey, while I thought most of your arguments in your last post were either unfounded or argued against an idea that the majority aren't putting forward (not at all to your detriment, of course) I do respect that you're thinking about compromise. I would happily admit to being one of these so called 'realism junkies' in some instances, but not this one. I genuinely think hiding the name (until well within firing distance) would add to game play. Your idea of a 'recognition skill' is a good one. I would say it should be a skill the player brings to the table (recognising familiar ships/ship set-ups and how they approach you) rather than the game but I would far prefer your 'recognition skill' over being able to see the names at all times and distances. (I'm talking specifically to open world too btw) As for focus fire, an argument that keeps coming up, I can appreciate why, given the nature of the current alpha test it's been given such high importance. However.... If a group of players give it half as much importance as seems to have been given to it in this thread then players will find a way to do it regardless. It would even become something of a skill in itself. Any difficulties in this department apply to both sides, so contrary to what has been argued it won't make the game any harder in that respect, it's just more to manage if you want to become better than other players. Game labs are under no obligation to make focus firing easier as it's not necessarily essential to game play. Or even something that happened historically. I'm not trying to take it out of the game just highlight this. It's overlooked how easily this can be overcome. It's been suggested in this thread that something as simple as displaying numbers above the enemy ships (maybe only when you hold a button down) would make focus firing no harder than it is currently. All without knowing the names of your enemy. Anyway, glad to see people discussing the actual question at hand. There is lots of ambiguity over what is being proposed here and what the changes would effect. I would be more than willing to make a new thread/poll that is far clearer as to what we're talking about and with more detailed, compromising options/ alternatives then link to it in this thread if people would like?

The only steps I'm in favor of taking are in the direction of removing names of players until within a certain distance and only in open world. There is no next step to take. The human mind works in logical fallacies. Your assumption that "While this particular change might not lead to that, it is a step in the wrong direction and will easily become a slippery slope." is a known logical fallacy. You even used the exact words... You're leveraging the fear that this 1 change will lead to others without offering any reasons as to why. It won't, it's only one change and should be argued for and against on it's own merits. PS: I don't use facebook and as a British citizen have no idea what 'Republican fanatics' even are..

I might be wrong but think for the most part, we do want to remove the information available, granted some seem not to have grasped this (it's not been well explained really). Just because WoT is poorly designed doesn't mean that NA will be too. As for the old slippery slope nonsense - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Yep, it has to be everyone as far as information availability is concerned. How it's displayed could be changed to preference but it has to be there for none or for all. Unless you're talking about friendly ships. That should be optional to show either their name, a friendly icon or nothing. The option to show friendly names if desired does need to be there though.

That isn't what I'm ultimately concerned with (it's probably my fault for not making myself clear enough) this is why I haven't stopped responding to the thread. I'm straight against being able to know the name of the enemy (up to a certain range) at all, regardless of how they decide to display it (above the ship, below the ship, only in the glass etc... ). I feel that uncertainty about who the potential friend/foe is and what his intentions maybe be will ramp up the tension. I completely accept that at some point (at hailing range - I know, I sound like a broken record...) you're going to need to know who you're trading with, swapping info with or fighting. I just think it would add something to gameplay and take little from it ..

You did respond specifically to me however and I never once argued for "recognizing ships by their paint, class and flags" or "banning social interactions".. Anyway, I completely take your point about staying social and fun, I just don't think altering the name tags would remove anything from that. It's cool to disagree though, otherwise I'd have nobody to waste my time responding to.

You're correct. This is where the compromise comes into it. It's a balance between difficulty and fun. How would you argue removal of names to be replaced with an 'enemy indicator' makes the core gameplay harder though? We aren't talking about the 'realism' of the user interface here, it's the information that you're given within the UI. Exactly! Knowing or not knowing who you're attacking is not the UI, it's fundamental to gameplay and thus part of the 'realism'. Deciding when and how your enemy is revealed to you will effect the range of choices you have to make, not hinder them. I am all for the 'closer you are, more info you have' model too, I'm just clarifying what it is we're actually debating here. haha

1. Jack the Ripper? ... but seriously, having a set distance at which point the names are visible would mean that in close engagements or boardings the name of the of the victor would be known. Then, once a player with a 'reputation' is in the area, every distant ship would potentially strike fear into a convoy or nearby port. 2. If they really wanted to, they could easily... "Everyone follow my lead and focus fire" *fires at enemy ship* .. I refuse to accept that not having a name above the enemies ships would make focus fire impossible. Let's just pretend it did, even then it's still the same for both sides. 3. I would argue the opposite would be far more fun and risky in attack, especially for pirates. This has to be a good thing. 4. That is one valid point you have. A player out of identification range couldn't be immediately known and noted for reporting. I'm sure with some thought though a work around could be found.

Sure, if you're playing with friends, sailing together, fighting together, traveling in a convoy, chat away... I would be the first person to complain if they decided you couldn't socialise in game. Not having enemy's names above their head doesn't effect that at all. If you're in port or out at sea (within hail) trading or pressing crew etc. talk to the other players (everyone in port/town would be within hail), swap anecdotes and information all you want... no harm. What difference does the 'social aspects' have to do with knowing what ship you're closing down or what their intentions are though? I see no scenario where you need to say anything to an enemy or and unknown ship until they're within hailing distance and if you can suggest one that's game-breaking then I'll be happy to concede here. Again, I'm not arguing realism over fun. Re-read my post. I will argue there will be more fun without the names (over distant ships), not because of realism but because it gives you more options on attack and more uncertainty, which creates immersion and nerves. This is what got people so excited when Day Z came out, that uncertainty about the intentions of another player. Is that a game you can't play with friends? Definitely not. There will be no need to ask who has what flags in chat, non at all. Unless there are 10-15 of exactly the same ship at any given point on the open ocean at once and you're trying to locate a friend amongst them (..and even then saying "I'll fire one cannon now" would do the trick) then the names above the head are of little use other than to remove that nervy immersion Day Z became so popular for. I'm not trying to change your mind about anything other than the overstated importance you have for the names always being above the ship. Please, understand that I think they should be there for friendly ships and ship from the same navies anyway.

Arena mode, remove enemy names and replace with an enemy indicator you can turn on/off. Keep friendly names. Open world, remove players names and only reveal them within hailing distance. . Not knowing the name of the guy you're shooting at or chasing down doesn't make the game harder at all. It's not only the same for both sides but simply changing "Focus Fire Dansih" to "Focus Fire North Most Victory" or "Focus Fire This Victory" as you fire a broadside at a Victory will take one engagement to get used to, if that. And captains had no more prior info than we can discern from looking through the spy glass. Basically, the type of ship. If they knew any more they were either well informed or kept a track of who sails what ship and where to expect them. Information we should be able to gather to our advantage in game. You could just as easily ask "are enemy name indicators really necessary as a mandatory step?" too. I would say that they aren't. Honestly, how big a deal would removing the names be? Is it a game breaker? I would also argue that a game without them would have an extra level of intrigue. "who is the captain of this ship on the horizon? Is he friend or foe?" as opposed to, "That's "Mr Doran" again, he chased me for 10 minutes then captured my ship in a frigate last week, I'll go the other way".. Let's at least try it first. Once within a certain distance (within hail I would propose), the name is then revealed. We aren't discussing the yards & wind indicator, which is information that you would have available to you anyway. Simply the names above our enemies ship and as I've argued above it would add an extra level of subterfuge, disguising your ship to get closer before opening fire etc. as well as an extra level of tactics and maneuver. After all, picking your fights and judging how to approach an unknown enemy is the most important part of any engagement, surely? All the concerns are merited but I just don't think this is the time to raise them as you loose so little and gain so much (I'm talking long term, granted not so much in arena mode) by restricting enemy name indicators to extreme close range.