Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Jeremiah Gunsmoke

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About Jeremiah Gunsmoke

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

523 profile views
  1. When Legends was cancelled, some of us talked about the potential it would have had if it ever was fully released as free to play on Steam. In this post I'd like to describe what the ideal and most promising version of this free to play game would have looked like in my opinion. Disclaimer: I know that Legends is very unlikely to happen in any form. @admin pointed out that they lack the manpower to develop and maintain two games at once and I completely understand this point of view. It's probably the right decision to focus on getting Naval Action out of early access first with all core features finished to a certain extent. Nonetheless I refuse to completely give up hope and if the developers ever want to revisit Legends they'll might get one or two ideas out of this post. Gameplay: Naval Action's combat and sailing model is in a pretty good shape and I don't see a lot of issues to be solved there. (Apart from the boring click.boarding maybe, but even that is at least functional.) In my opinion the battles are the best part of the game and would make for a solid core for an arena game like Legends. Just like in the latest build we had of Legends, hull and crew repairs should be left out to not drag the battles out too long and to make your losses during the battle more meaningful. In case of gamemodes I'd keep it simple for the start. Stick to simple deathmatches that are decided by one side disabling all ships of the other side. Bring back the old circle of death to prevent players from dragging out battles that are already over. Alternatively bring in a large circle in the center of the map that grants points to the side that has ships in it, but stops doing so if at least one ship of the other side is also in there. Further gamemodes could be introduced after some testing and community feedback but I don't think they are really necessary. Just shooting other ships over and over again with no real purpose might sound boring and repetitive on paper, but in the end that's how all those arena games work, right? I've played Mechwarrior Online for quite a long time and while they have several gamemodes (deathmatch, conquest, escort, base defend/attack), all of them are usually decided by one team eliminating the other one since the objectives get ignored in favour of shooting some enemies. Matchmaking: There should be a counter of five minutes maximum. A match starts either when the maximum amount of players is in the queue, or after the countdown has ended with all players that are in the queue at this point. The matchmaker should try to roughly balance the teams based on the ships' BR and maybe some sort of captain's skill rating. (Not sure about this as it doesn't seem to work really well in most multiplayer games I know. Could be a way to balance groups though.) AI ships should only be present if there is a BR gap between the teams that can't be closed by balancing the present player ships. This should guarantee that there are never more than one or maybe two AI ships in one match. If the matchmaking queue ends with only one player waiting for a game, there should be a notification for said player that he can either enter a match against an AI opponent or return to the main menu. If there is for example a 2v2 match with somewhat acceptable balanced teams, bots shouldn't be present at all to artificially boost the match to a 5v5 as we saw it in the latest build we were able to play. I suggest two different queues. One for 7th and 6th rates only and one for 5th rates and above. This way you have one place for the smaller ships to shine and for new players to learn the ropes and another one for the bigger ships and more experienced players. (The tutorial that was made for Naval Action could be offered as an option in the main menu as well, of course.) It might come into consideration to allow 7th and 6th rates in the queue for the bigger ships too if someone really wants to bring one of those to a bigger battle. Battles with mixed rates aren't a problem in my opinion if the balance doesn't rely on bots as much as the „old“ Legends did. At least it's easier to approach a bigger ship with several smaller ones if everyone involved is a player. The whole range of 5th to 1st rates will also provide more variety in the ships you encounter than the latest build of Legends did with its BR restrictions. Besides the two main queues there should be the option for a custom lobby. Those lobbies should have some options for the creator to determine the rules for the match that is created. For example: private / public (free for all / join with password or invitation only) rate limits (free for all / ships of one specific rate only / ships of a specific range of rates only) gamemode (Maybe even consider to enable players to turn the circle of death on or off for private lobbies where everyone agrees to a set of rules anyway.) map turn on/off automated matchmaking – While it's switched off the players can organize their teams however they like. No rewards could be gained in custom battles to prevent people from farming them. Rewards: Keep it simple, I'd say. During Sea Trials we had a system that was solely based on damage. You had to deal a certain amount of damage in one ship to unlock the next one. While that system is a bit too basic for a game that is supposed to be more than a test and that is based mostly on progression, the main idea is still good. Reward players for inflicting damage to the enemy by translating the damage they dealt throughout a match into XP and ingame currency. This would also provide a good solution for several ships working together to take down an enemy: The enemy has a total of X hitpoints. The players deal Y amount of damage to him in order to sink/board him. Player A is responsible for 50% of Y. Player B is responsible for 30% of Y. Player C is responsible for 20% of Y. V hitpoints are left on the enemy as you don't have to get them to zero in order to win. The amount of damage the players dealt is directly translated to XP and ingame currency at a fixed ratio. This way Player A gets the most out of the fight and Player C the least, which represents their share in the battle. Player A also gets the kill for his statistics but no extra XP and ingame currency reward. The V amount of hitpoints that is left on the enemy after he is out of the fight is also distributed between the three players according to their share. Player A gets 50% of V, Player B 30% and Player C 20%. That's necessary to prevent some options of winning from becoming less rewarding. (If your first shot hits the enemy's magazine and blows up the ship, Y is a very small amount. By also rewarding you for V you get 100% of X nonetheless.) There are some benefits that come with the proposed system. First of all it forces people to fight. You run away? You don't deal damage and don't get any rewards. Secondly it rewards players according to the role they played during the fight. Supporting a larger ship against another larger ship is as viable in terms of rewards as your support is to your ally. But there's more! Since X, the total hitpoints of a target, is different for every ship, larger vessels are encouraged to rather fight similar sized or even larger vessels first. Smaller targets will give less rewards as they have less hitpoints. Last but not least this system prevents players from being discouraged by an unfortunate loss. If you have put up a good fight but lost due to other circumstances, you'd still get decent rewards for your effort. To prevent further frustration a sunk player should be able to immediately join another match and not have to wait for the ongoing battle to end. I'd also leave out repair costs for ships completely to prevent anyone from getting a minus after a match. The only way to get negative rewards should be (extensive) friendly fire and maybe running out of bounds to kill yourself. Progression: I really think the linear system we had in the Legends prototype wasn't the best solution to come up with. My suggestion would be a combination of ship and rate unlocks. The 7th rates are unlocked from the start and you can pick one of them as your starting ship. A description of their stengths and weaknesses would be required for new players so they know what they get before they are stuck with it. Something like: Privateer: fast, nimble, fragile Pickle: sturdy, less manoeuvrable Cutter: allrounder Lynx: hardmode Yacht: bonus for everyone who owns regular Naval Action Once you've picked your first ship you can hop into battle and earn XP and ingame currency. XP is needed to either unlock new ships or the next rate. For example: You picked the Cutter as your first ship. With the XP you earned you can either unlock one of the other 7th rates or you can save it to unlock the next higher rate of ships, 6th in this case. This doesn't unlock a ship, but the posibility to unlock 6th rates with the XP you earn from now on. If you choose to unlock another 7th rate however, the amount of XP needed to unlock the next rate of ships gets lowered. So you can either focus on one ship you like and save up enough XP to unlock the next set of ships, or you can try out different ships and unlock the next set of ships by unlocking enough ships of your current set. Once you've unlocked a ship, you have to purchase it with ingame currency to get it into your dock and be able to use it. Cannons have to be purchased separately and the bigger they are, the more expensive they get. No XP is needed to unlock bigger cannons but they should be quite expensive. So you can again either choose to earn some more money with your smaller but well equipped vessel, or you field your new larger vessel but without its biggest possible guns until you can afford them. The upgrade system could stay as it was in the prototype. Every ship unlocks up to five upgrade slots at certain thresholds of XP earned while using it. Purchasing a new or changing an already applied upgrade costs ingame currency. The upgrades should provide small bonuses to customise your ships to your likings but not make them overpowered in comparison to non upgraded vessels. Different wood types could be introduced according to regular Naval Action but I'm not sure if this is a good idea. While it would be nice to be able to choose your build when purchasing a ship and to play around with different versions of one ship, I'm pretty sure a lot of builds would be more or less useless in an arena game. In addition different wood types make the balancing between the ships more difficult since you have to keep more than one version of each vessel in mind. Monetisation: A game needs to generate money and I think Legends has a lot of potential to do so without being disrespectful towards players. Some options: Paints: Each paint you purchase is an unlock for the specific ship you purchase it for. Once you've purchased the „Classic White“ paint for your Bellona for example, you can use it on all the Bellonas you'll ever own. Offer single paint purchases and the option of a paint collection that contains all available paints for one ship. Purchasing the collection is a little bit cheaper than purchasing each paint on its own. Additional options are one use paints, that are cheaper than the unlocks but can only be applied once to a single ship, and a premium paint collection that unlocks all paints at once for a high price, that is still cheaper than purchasing every single paint individually. Flags: Those shouldn't be tied to a specific ship but unlocks you buy once and then can use on every ship you want. Again, offer single flag purchases and collections of several flags that are cheaper in total than buying every single flag individually. Sail Decals and Colours: Work the same as flags. Neither decals nor colours for sails are yet announced for or implemented in regular Naval Action, so I don't know if there's something planned at all. They shouldn't be pure fantasy but match the historical setting we have though. Premium Time: Pretty much a standard in free to play games. You pay for a specific amount of premium time that grants you a bonus on XP and ingame currency you earn in battles. Options include different time spans offered for purchase and maybe even a lifetime purchase.The latter could come with a special ingame title and maybe even some other bonuses included (depends on the price). Custom Lobbies: The idea is to tie the right to create a custom lobby to a real money purchase. Everyone should have the ability to join one of those lobbies without having to pay for it, but if you want to create your own one, you'll have to make a small investment. Either as one time unlock or as part of premium time. (As long as you have premium time, you are also allowed to create custom lobbies.) Both options could be offered for those who want only custom battles but no premium time and for not double charging those who already pay for premium time. Dock Space: Another standard. You have a limited amount of dock space (maybe for 5-10 ships). After all your docks are full, you can either sell one of your old ships and replace it with a new one or purchase more dock space with real money. Personally I'm not a fan of this one as it feels too much like a restraint. On the other hand I'd probably be the first one to purchase more dock space, so I guess it's quite effective. Premium Ships: Ships that don't need to be unlocked by XP and ingame currency but are only obtainable through real money instead. They come with a bonus to all XP and ingame currency that is earned while using them. This one is tricky for the obvious pay to win reasons. You'd have to pick ships that have at least one viable alternative that is free for all to prevent a premium ship from becoming a must have. A bad example is something like we currently have with Le Requin as it is the most powerful ship of its rate at the moment. This would be even more problematic in Legends if there were 7th and 6th rates only battles. In this case Le Requin would become the absolute queen of the seas in those matches. As premium ship she would be labeled as pay to win immediately and rightfully. A better example is probably a ship like the Wapen von Hamburg. It's beautiful and quite unique in the game but not too powerful in comparison to the other 4th rates. (Assuming that the Agamemnon, Constitution and Ingermanland remain free for all.) So there would be a reason to buy her but at the same time buying her wouldn't give you an unfair advantage in the fights. I'm pretty sure l'Hermione and Santa Cecilia would sell well as premium ships too while not being overpowered. The implementation of all options mentioned here can be done in two ways. Either you put everything as mini DLCs on steam, which would be easier to handle for customers but would also lead to an enormous amount of DLCs that might hurt the game's image. Or you implement a premium currency that has to be purchased with real money and can then be used ingame to unlock all the premium stuff. Small amounts of premium currency might also serve as rewards for special events. This solution is easier to handle in terms of Steam's DLC shop but a little less customer friendly since you might have to purchase more premium currency than you actually need for the one unlock you're interested in. Advertising: I know there's no money for that at all. What you can do however, is hand out codes for premium stuff (one nice premium ship would probably be the best option) to youtubers, streamers and journalists and ask them to cover the game a bit. Of course you'd have to pick some people that are likely to be interested in the game to get a positive effect out of this. Some covered Sea Trials when it was made available so you might want to check their interest in Legends. Others can be suggested by the community. (I'm not the right one for this since I barely watch any Youtube/Twitch/whatever.) If someone decides to cover Legends a lot, there'd be the possibility to hand him some more codes he can then raffle amongst his followers to get more people into the game. Some kind of notification for everyone who bought regular Naval Action would be nice too. There are quite a lot of people that don't play the game because they couldn't get into the open world. Legends could possibly be the game they'd be interested in more. (No offence to everyone who likes the open world here. Just different preferences.) Additional Thoughts: The yacht could get a premium ship bonus in terms of XP and ingame currency. This would give a little headstart to those, who bought regular Naval Action, and get them out of 7th rates a little faster. Finishing the tutorial could grant some XP and ingame currency as an incentive to actually do it. Events like the ones we had in the Legends prototype could return. They could be automated leaderboards that reset every week/month and count the 10 best matches every captain has done during this preiod of time. No opt in or opt out required and the top ten get some rewards. (Maybe premium currency.) You could think about special events that are in game for a short time. A checkpoint race with Lynxes maybe or a Mortar Brig competition. Small rewards for winners. Personally I don't really care for them, but a lot of people like Steam achievements. Especially in a game that is based on unlock progression anyway, they'd totally make sense. Just hand out achievements for every unlocked ship, for unlocking all ships of one rate, for matches played, ships sunk and what else you can think of. Some might grind through the whole game just for achievements. You can even think about ingame titles that are shown alongside your name and are rewarded for some of the more special achievements. Pros and Cons: Cons: Legends is a second game that needs to be developed and maintained. Game Labs is a small studio and is probably – if ever – only able to realise Legends after regular Naval Action is somewhat finished. Ship balancing can't be reused in Legends if the different wood types are left out. There is no guarantee for Legends to be able to attract enough players to be sustainable for the developers and fun for the players (empty queues). Only a test with a full free to play release on Steam can show the game's actual potential. The amount of advertising Game Labs can afford might not be enough. Pros: Once regular Naval Action is finished, a lot of assets can be reused for Legends. Ships, combat and sailing model, the tutorial, some UI elements, paints, flags etc. Legends' core already exists. We've played it. The developers can focus on creating a great open world for the people who like it and then deliver a battle arena for the ones who just want the fights. Legends appeals to another group of players than regular Naval Action does. This means that in total more people will be attracted and possibly pay for some DLC stuff. Possibly a higher player retention than a hardcore sandbox open world. Both games would benefit from the profit Legends eventually (hopefully) generates. New ships for example would be developed for both games. Maybe – just maybe – less toxicity in the forums and game chats when two opposed factions of players don't have to play the same game anymore. Concluding Statement: This is a basic concept. It contains blanks and flaws for sure. However I tried to translate a lot of the negative community feedback on the Legends prototype into improved game mechanisms. At the same time I didn't want to go too far away from the basics we already have, knowing that too much effort wouldn't be affordable for Game Labs. I tried to achieve a system that is balanced between fair customer treatment and the business aspect of game development. In my opinion the willingness to pay for little things like paints or flags in order to support the developers comes with satisfaction with the game itself and the fun it provides. I don't know if there's still hope for Legends to ever happen. I don't know if it would be a success either. I don't expect anyone to actually read this but if you did, I'd be impressed. Let me know what you think while you're at it.
  2. Thought basically the same. The only way to know about Legends so far is reading this forum, which limits the amount of people that are aware of the game to a small percentage of regular Naval Action's players. I talked to some players in Legends' chat that more or less stumbled upon the new Steam entry by accident. Combined with some people who stopped playing Naval Action a long time ago because they couldn't get into the open world, I'd assume that would make for quite a lot of players who'd like to play Legends - but simply didn't know they could. In addition I personally didn't thought of advertising the game to my friends yet because it clearly wasn't finished and wipes were inevitable. I know that you're a small team and I'd actually say it's a good decision to focus on finishing one game first. I'd just like to point out that I don't see the numbers during this test as an indicator for Legends' potential. So I hope you'll give it another try once regular Naval Action is somewhat finished. Even without any marketing budget there are chances for more people to get into Legends. In the age of Youtube and Twitch sometimes good gameplay is all it needs to promote a game and the combat and sailing model in Naval Action definitely has the potential for that. A simple notification for everyone who bought regular NA might help too. If I understand aright "remove the gear fear" means removing the fear of losing your ship and your upgrades and not removing upgrades in general.
  3. It's obvious that Legends had a problem with few players resulting in bot matches resulting in even less players. But I actually had hope that this would change with a full and more fleshed out free to play release. All the ships from regular Naval Action to unlock, more options to customise these ships (upgrades, officers, paints, whatever), a better progression and reward system (still not a fan of gun progression) and - most important - no impending wipe on the horizon would have been quite good reasons for players to actually stick to the game. The new sailing model, the adaptions to thickness and maybe even a lobby for predefined battles could have been additional improvements. However I'll admit that this is absolutely theoretical and there wasn't a guarantee for it to work. I think the initial thought behind Legends - two different groups of players that can't be satisfied within only one game - is still kind of relevant though. Uncomplicated, more or less even and easily accessible fights in the OW sound good to me on paper as well, but I doubt you'll reach that goal without making those players unhappy, that actually enjoy features like the economy that only work within the open world environment. Even the proposed BR limits for the new patrol areas already caused opposition on the forums because they are considered as contrary to the idea of an open world. So yeah, all in all I'm not sure if this is the right decision, but at least for me it's sad to read.
  4. Yes, the premium box shows what you would have got with a premium account. If you've lost a match however, the premium bonus is the same bonus you would have got for a win as both are a +50% increase on rewards. That's all I was saying. My concern isn't about premium. I'm totally fine with premium accounts earning more xp and silver than regular accounts as the game has to generate money somehow. No offence intended, but I think you missed the point here. I didn't run away from the fights. I never do because I don't think it's fun. The screenshots I posted above show roughly the same amount of damage dealt to the enemy team. Despite this there's a significant difference in rewards even if you'd add the win bonus to the match my team lost. (37260 silver and 2484 xp vs. 11610 silver and 774 xp) Now, why did I get no kills in the 6-assists match? My team consisted of a player in an Agamemnon, a player in an Indefatigable, my Trincomalee and AI (random match, not grouped up before). The enemy team consisted of five or six players (some grouped up) in mostly smaller frigates and AI. It's hard to keep up with the damage an Agamemnon puts out while you are on a Trincomalee. (I at least tried to stay with the Agamemnon and hit the same targets.) So to get that straight: I'm good with the one wo deals most damage getting the kill. I'm good with kills and assists granting bonus xp. However in my opinion the punishment for someone who contributed to the fight but simply didn't get a kill is too harsh at the moment.
  5. @JobaSet @Galileus @Norfolk nChance Win bonus is +50% on your overall XP and silver you gained during the whole match. Basically the amount of XP and silver shown inside the 'with premium'-box is what I would have got if the defeat was a win. (Premium bonus is +50% as well if I'm not mistaken.) So even if my team had won the 6-assists-match, the rewards would have been quite sobering. (Considering that the only difference between the two matches then would have been the kill count, which is highly dependent on team composition.) Please correct me if I got something wrong.
  6. Here's a nice example of the problem we discussed. I was on a Trincomalee during both matches. The damage I dealt is more or less the same, but due to the kill and win bonuses there's a huge gap between the respective rewards. If the overall damage was the main factor for the calculation of rewards, this gap would be much smaller. This is not about rewarding players for a loss but rather about rewarding them for a good fight. I had fun in both matches. Actual players were present in each team and everybody was willing to fight. As a consequence I didn't really mind losing one of the matches, but the end screen was quite a downer nonetheless. As far as I know the rewards are still 2x of what they will be after release. If the maintenance costs aren't doubled as well at the moment, the amount of silver I got for the loss will not be enough to cover them. (5670 silver repair fee on my Trincomalee currently.) That should only be the case if you didn't actually contribute something substantial to the match at all in my opinion. Keeping the current system as it is will probably lead to a lot of frustration. Especially for players who care a bit more about progressing than I do.
  7. @admin Uh, sorry. I guess my post was a bit unclear there. I know that the kill is granted to the player that dealt the most damage. I was mostly referring to what @Jon Snow lets go said: That the bonus you get for a win might be too big. Currently you get quite a lot of XP and silver if you did well in the fight (damage, kills, assists - as you said) and got the win. If you did well in the fight but lost the match, the rewards drop significantly since you are missing the +50% increase for the win. So what I'm thinking about is basically, that lowering the bonus for the win and instead slightly increasing the rewards for the damage you deal might ease the situation for someone who put up a good fight but lost due to other circumstances. It's the same with the kill bonus. I don't know how much XP/silver is rewarded for those, but if it's too much in comparison to the regular damage XP, players will be better off with securing one single kill instead of trying to survive and getting more damge out over time. That's what @Galileus mentioned here: Examples: The win bonus: Player A gets 3 kills and 3 assists during a match. Player B gets the same amount of kills and assists and dealt roughly the same amount of damage, but his team wins the match in addition. Although both players performed equally well, the huge win bonus causes Player A to feel that he isn't really rewarded for his performance. There should be a bonus for a win, but it shouldn't be a major factor in the calculation of rewards because the individual effort becomes less important this way. The kill bonus: Player A deals 500 damage to an enemy ship. Player B deals 510 damage to the same enemy ship. Both players get XP and silver for the damage they dealt, but player B gets a bonus for the kill. If this bonus is too big (somewhat exceeds the XP and silver rewarded for only the damage), player A will conclude that it's better for his progress to not help his teammate next time but to search himself another target he can get the kill bonus for. I hope this is a bit clearer now.
  8. I kind of agree with that. While I'm good with players getting a bonus for a win and a kill/assist, I really think the main thing that grants XP should be the damage you deal to your opponents. This way you achieve two things: You promote actual fighting. You reward players for good fights, even if they lose the match at the end. The potential damage you can deal in a cutter is obviously lower than it is in a frigate or even a ship of the line. However that's balanced already due to the larger amounts of XP you need to progress in larger ships.
  9. Question: Answer: In my opinion it's the right decision to bring all the ships into Legends. While I personally play Legends mostly because I think the battles are fun, ship progression is probably the main motivation for a huge amount of players. As a result Legends presumably profits by a large ship lineup more than the open world does. In the open world there's a preferred ship for each role and a lot of the remaining ones aren't used at all. I'd also argue that exclusive ships for the open world wouldn't be that much of an incentive to actually play Naval Action OW. It's a choice you make based on what kind of gameplay you prefer. You either like the more complex open world or you don't. Some more ships to sail won't transform a pure arena player into an open world hunter. I'm not saying that there won't be new players that might get attracted by the open world after trying Legends, but I actually think the amount of players who like both games equally is quite limited. As far as I know that's one of the reasons we have an arena game now. Back to topic: Reducing the group penalty is probably a good decision. At least this will allow new player groups to have some fun and maybe make them stay for a while. I'd still like to see a custom match option though. Battles without rewards but with parameters set by players. In the long run that would be a nice addition to provide an opportunity for organized group vs group fights.
  10. I agree that bow tanking feels quite powerful at the moment. Not sure about the lack of impact from stern rakes though. You can take out some guns and a decent number of crew in one proper stern rake with ball shot at medium distance. If you want to take out more crew, you will have to go for grape shot at close range. In one of my recently played matches I killed about 100 men on an enemy Indefatigable in one single stern rake with grape. That's 100 out of 350. So limiting the amount of crew damage from ball shot is probably a bit 'gamey' but also provides a reason for grape to be in the game. Generally speaking I'd also say that ship sizes matter a lot when discussing this topic. It's easier to just destroy a Brig's side armour and main structure than to effectively rake it. Especially in a fight with mostly unrated ships almost all vessels are agile and small enough to limit the damage they take from rakes and get into a position where they're able to hit the enemy's broadside. In fights between frigates rakes are more important. Smaller ships can grape the larger ones' sterns and a small ship like the Cerberus, that points the bow towards a broadside of 18pdrs or even 24pdrs, wil probably take quite a beating too. I also managed to take out masts via rakes (both bow and stern rakes) already, but as stated before that doesn't really matter as long as masts can be replaced so easily.
  11. The sail repair feels a bit out of place actually. While it's obviously a pain to lose a mast and remain crippled for the rest of the fight, it's basically the same with gun and crew loss, isn't it? Once you've lost some guns and crew, you have to deal with it. There's no way of getting them back in Legends and I appreciate that. However, removing the sail repair completely would require some mindful balancing in order to prevent the game from becoming just an endless sail and mast sniping. (Although I'd claim that mast sniping is still more interesting than the boarding minigame, but that's just my opinion.) At least chain shot would need to be limited to a certain amount of shots per gun and the overall mast HP would probably need a buff, so masts don't fall after only two broadsides from a similar sized vessel. A nice side effect of not being able to get masts back could be that it would force people to be a bit more careful with ramming. Losing your bowsprit feels worse if you can't have a new one within seconds. On the other hand there's room to abuse this system. Take an agile ship to a larger ship's bow, slow down just in front of them, take their bowsprit and profit from your opponent's decreased manoeuvrability. We had that during Sea Trials. So I'm not quite sure about this. Personally I'd like a destroyed mast to be more meaningful than it currently is, but maybe the 15 min. timer (that effectively limits the numbers of masts you can get back in one match) actually is the best balance we are able to reach here.
  12. I know. That's why I linked my previous post regarding this topic. To make a long story short: In my opinion too much frustration will rather hurt the playerbase than raise sales. The critical level of frustration is a different one for each individual player though. I guess we'll see how it goes once more players reach bigger ships.
  13. In regard to gun progression I still stand by my opinion that I posted here: http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/23343-weekend-6-new-round-of-testing/?do=findComment&comment=482809 However I thought I might as well suggest some tunings, since you probably won't change the whole system again. So here are my experiences with the gun progression system so far: The first ship I used from scratch since gun progression was introduced is the Renommee. She is able to mount 9pd mediums/longs on her main gun deck while still at upgrade level 0.* I actually don't know whether this is a bug or working as intended but you should keep it. Fighting another Renommee with nothing but 4pdrs would probably require hugging her to death. Upgrading to the Frigate felt like a downgrade even compared to a Renommee with basic loadout. You start with 9pd mediums/longs on her main deck too but in contrast to the Renommee, the Frigate is more prone to gun and crew loss. As a result making use of the 9pdrs becomes harder in the Frigate. All in all she is a bit on the edge. Not unplayable but I'd prefer her to be able to carry 12pd mediums/longs from the start. The Essex is the first ship that simply feels undergunned at upgrade level 0. With 9pd mediums/longs on her lower deck she's rather a target than a danger. I really think she should at least be able to carry 12pd mediums/longs at upgrade level 0. Currently she's like a knight in heavy armour that brought nothing but a knife to the fight. It's basically the same with the Indefatigable. While she can mount 12pd mediums/longs on her lower deck at upgrade level 0, that's actually not enough to make the battles fun. A fight between myself and an allied AI-Indefatigable against two other AI-Indefatigables was decided by timeout, because the overall damage output was quite low compared to the Indefatigable's hitpoints. Probably different against and with other players (as AI often isn't able to properly hit other AI ships), but I'm not sure if fighting against players will be more fun while you are stuck in a sluggish brick without the firepower to make up for this weakness. I'd suggest at least 18pd mediums/longs for the Indefatigbale at upgrade level 0. I haven't unlocked the Trincomalee yet so no opinion on her so far. *Or at least she was able to do so when I was using her shortly after gun progression was added to the game.
  14. I've never been a fan of systems like the new gun progression. You basically limit the fun people have in battles to make them pay. While I get the point that a game like Legends has to generate money in order to be sustained, I'd also like to point out that you need players as well. So you might want to be careful with introducing too many limiting factors that potentially prevent people from actually playing Legends. There's already a higher threshold to overcome for new players than there is in comparable games. They have to learn how combat and sailing works, they need patience for the rather slow and long battles and they need an interest in the Age of Sail to start with. Sadly sailing ships aren't as appealing as tanks or planes for a great amount of people. If you really want to keep the gun progression I'd prefer something like @DeRuyter suggested: Starting with the heaviest (or maybe one weight class below) mediums availabe for the particular ship and then providing longs and carronades as unlocks. This way you'd still have the feeling of progression and would prevent the battles from being perceived as painful obstacle. Personally I'd like to have a system that emphasises Naval Action's biggest strength which is the fun and intense combat. I'd rather face an extensive grind towards the next ship than the feeling of being forced to play some rounds without fun to get to the fun again. In my opinion players willingly pay for games they enjoy playing since they want to support both the game and the developers. If they enjoy the battles they will more likely be ready to pay for premium ships, skins, decals or whatever you want to offer in the future. They'll also pay for premium time to shorten the time they need to get to the ship they want to be in. By limiting the fun however you may force people to pay, but they won't be as happy with their purchase as they would be if they made their decision without the feeling of enforcement. I admit that I don't have any insight in game development or data on monetisation in free to play games though. So maybe my whole approach is a bit naive.
  15. My previous post is a bit outdated now since Snow and Cerberus don't come with 18pd carronades as bow/stern chasers by default any longer. The 18pd carronades are still missing in the outfitting tab for both of them though. (I don't know whether this is intended or not but it seems odd. Brig and Navy Brig are still able to mount 18pd carronades as stern chasers.) In addition I just unlocked the Renommee and she comes with 6pd mediums on her lower deck while they are locked in the outfitting tab. Not sure if this is a bug either.
  • Create New...