SueMyChin

I think if players are going to prefer the arena mode to open world, then there isn't much chance of them liking open world unless it's a massive death match arena in itself. Keep the arena and then we can get the open world we want and not a more long-winded, complex arena mode

This. If you want to know who you're fighting you should have to work it out, the game shouldn't tell you. Long term: maybe when you get to within biscuit-toss or hailing distance the game then identifys the captains name for you. This is correct, however the captains had to first know that information, they wernet told it by an interface. In Open world, this will reward players for getting to know other players in their locality. Approach a ship, trade stores share information, part ways and remember the captain of the 18 gun Brig 'Resolution' as Cpt. Crankey.

I would purposely stick to actual crew numbers for the very reason you illustrate. If you use % the system gets too complicated in general and to work out on the fly. What happens when your complement has been reduced due to action, would % show that while sails were set to 100%, there still weren't enough to man them? Or would you use original % - however many crew had been lost? Using plain numbers is always the way to go on an interface and it's more immersive too. A captain would never say something like 50% of gun crew to the pumps etc. I feel the same way, however if they were to go with a slider allocation system as above it would be to replace the current 'mode' buttons as well as the repair kits interface, not to add to it. It would actually reduce visible UI, simplify crew management, give more control and be more realistic. As far as development is concerned I've made more complicated systems in flash games, it could be done in an afternoon.

To keep it as simple as possible I would go with a set of sliders. One for sails, another for guns and third 'repair crew' (or auixalry crew) . The sliders have numbers below referring to the number of men allocated to each and their colour (say... green to red) indicates wheteher they're sufficiently manned. Green operatiing at 100% - red 0%. Too many or too few crew would probably reduce morale. Too many would cost more in supplies and wages also.

I appreciate that but not only will removing 'panic mode' make my brain hurt less, it would also give the player more control. Let's for arguments sake say I'm in an Indiaman with a 1st rate bearing down on me. His chasers reduce my sail and take out my mizzen-top mast. I have no intention of firing a broadside at him, so I can leave my sails fully crewed and allocate men from my guns to jury-rig a top mast and repair sails. Allocation of resources could be a key skill in engagements not to mention open world, where we need as much control as possible, each knot of speed could mean life or death.

I can't be the only one here thinking repair kits and survival mode is a little bit 'arcadey' when a very simple, more realistic model could easily be implemented instead. You have a given number of crew, a number you chose to leave port with. Obviously this is limited by availability, amount of supplies, the size of your ship and how much you can afford to pay, game balance. Your ship has an ideal number of crew needed to operate (speed which you alter sails and reload guns) at 100%. Let's say this number is 100 crewmen, if you hire 100 men you operate at 100%. 75 men and you operate at 75%. 150 men and you operate at 100%. When in battle the crew are set to their stations (guns/sails). When an 'event' (fire, broken mast, leaks, broken rudder, ran aground etc) occurs you can allocate a number of crew to be taken away from their stations to rectify the 'event' and improve your situation. The number you remove from their stations has an adverse effect on the role you remove them from. Say you take 50% of the crew from the guns to dowse a fire, the guns now operate at 50% of their fully crewed speed. If you take 50% crew from sails, alterations to sailing like turning masts or increasing sails now happen at 50% of the normal, fully attended rate. The number of men you allocate to a problem determine how quickly the problem is resolved, This is where those extra 50 crewmen can come in handy. Sufficiently realistic and simple to implement and understand. No need for silly 'repair-kits'. The crew availability and ships stores should be the limit to repairing a ship. If you have enough sail cloth and available crew you could repair sails all day. However, anything jury-rigged (mast, rudder) should operate at a reduced efficiency. Surely this is preferable to 'repair-kits' and 'modes'..?

I've just read through this whole thread (I'll paraphrase the prior 7 pages up for anyone who doesn't wish to do the same) and it seems pretty clear what the general consensus is with few exceptions. I appreciate the discussion is largely pointless as the devs will have their own preferences but I got nothing better to do with my time We don't want to see players usernames above their ship. We want the name of our ships on the name plate (so long as it's not detracting too much time from gameplay improvements). We generally don't want unrestricted ship names as abuse detracts from immersion. A list of acceptable/historical names in different languages is generally preferred. You can change your own ship name upon purchase/construction of the ship. Ships owned by Navies cannot be renamed. There is compromise there and it can't really be argued to spoil immersion if well implemented. The only concession is that players wanting to name their ships sensibly (I would be one) have no means to do so. I would like to put forward a suggestion... As well as the 'lists' of ship names you can chose from when renaming a ship, how about the option to submit a name for approval (bear with me here).. It is made VERY clear that only realistic names will be approved and filters (no symbols, numbers etc. or prefixes like 'USS', 'HMS') are placed on submissions. The name will only be changed upon approval, which could take days and in the mean time you can chose from the list keeping in mind this might be the final name. It costs you a real $donation just to make a submission without any guarantee that it will be accepted. This will stop spamming name requests. If accepted you will be charged a premium (for instance, 3x $donation amount) to change your ship name. This helps fund the game (which I know is another highly debated topic that). The devs could even employ someone to do this with the explicit instruction that the names must be appropriate meaning it wont detract from more important developments. It won't ruin immersion, in fact would help it by offering more unique names.. I see no downside to this other than time taken to implement into the game. I would also suggest that if we're to create a list of appropriate ship names then a list at dockyards for appropriate, historically accurate colour schemes could also be added. Players worried about opening a can of worms need to understand that this does not set a precedent for players to demand anything else. It's a solution to a problem (that will no doubt arise if/when naming towns or ports is added too) and it needs to be addressed eventually. These are mere suggestions and the devs obviously have final say to veto anything.

Absolutely love where this game is going.... Ever since playing AOP2 I've wanted for a more realistic age of sail 'sim'/game. I don't really understand the reluctance to the magazine explosions. The fact is they did happen and therefore surely should be implemented in game. So long as they only occur at a rate consistent with historical fact then how can they be a problem? It's stands to reason that if you're at all concerned your ship might be blown up, don't get yourself into a position where your bow is being shot at.... I appreciate that all care was taken to minimalise the chances of your magazine being hit and this should be represented in game, however 'below the waterline' isn't a consistent world on a sailing vessel (least of all inside of the ship where usually, there isn't any water at all) and without delving too far into terminal ballistics, it's completely plausible that one of countless thousands of shot fired in any engagement could deflect or ricochet where you least want it. This ties in nicely with this post - 100% on the money! Extenuating circumstance aside, if you're shooting to sink a ship in the age of sail then you're doing it wrong! Hulling a ship, and thus firing at the waterline (where a shot is most likely to hit the magazine) is not going to be the order of the day in open world. You gain absolutely nothing by using your powder and shot to sink a ship and then head back to port to recrew and repair. One less reason to worry about magazine explosions and consider the most probable way you're going to lose your ship, capture! The damage model looks fantastic but I wonder if you have plans to implement the same level of detail into the sails and rigging? Currently, if I understand correctly, only the masts have individual damage meters besides the overall sail damage percentage. Do you plan on expanding this to the yards and sails? It would be vast improvement on the current sail damage system if striking a yard with shot carried it away or hitting a stay with chain shot would tear off the staysails. Though I appreciate this would increase the damage model complexity significantly. RE: shot skipping across the sea, I remember reading an essay on Commodore Charles Morris, USN (1784–1856) responses to John Clerk of Eldin's An Essay on Naval Tactics (it can be found here http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/Morris-Clerk-Essay.htm) where Morris writes: "If directed at the hull [shots] may also effect the ships rudder wheel &c, or pass through between wind and water (below the waterline), and as shot when thus directed may fall short they will in almost any common weather ricochet and will do material injury either to the hull or rigging. If you already have ricochet mechanics for hulls maybe this is something that you could implement, though I can't suppose to know exactly what he means by 'material damage'. We could do with Mythbusters testing all this stuff out in an episode entitled "Naval Action". Free research and great publicity. Get the Marketing team on it!