Players losing ships is bad, and here is why.

[Mrdoomed]

I really don't see why that would be better than just making the ships permanent and having other penalties for getting killed and other things to trade. After all, losing a battle should never be completely free, and there certainly shouldn't be such a thing as a "Basic Victory" you can spawn an infinite number of. The point of asking for permanent ships is that ships would be a lot more expensive to craft, and a lot more of a long term investment. It's to encourage people to try and go after that all exceptional perfect ship rather than having to keep a ships disposability-factor in mind. The perfect disposability of basic ships would just make them superior to other ships in most situations. I am against disposable ships and having to treat them as such.

The kinds of things I would do as a compromise between every ship being inevitably destroyed and no loss ever hurting anyone would be more things like:

- Have the game set up so that all gold and experience earned during a voyage only become yours to keep once you've made it back to port. This is the Darksouls principle, the game doesn't punish you for failure, but it only rewards you for success.

- Allow ships to be overhauled to restore their durability. An Overhaul kit for a ship class would cost as much to build as the most basic version of that ship, so that if you have a really great exceptional version of your ship you can overhaul it for the price of a disposable version.

- Have the crew on a ship gain it's own independent experience pool that affects how fast they work, and is reset if the ship is sunk, so that operating a ship without sinking for some time will make the crew maybe 5-10% more efficient than if it's an all new crew.

- Allow durability to slowly recover over time, so that if you don't get sunk very often it's not a problem, but if you get sunk a lot it is. This lets people who have less time to play the game get a bit of a leg up because if they are only available on weekends for example their ships can recover under the week.

- Change repair kits so that every ship type has its own specific repair kit that works on any ship of that type, and can be crafted using a fraction of the same materials that the ship is made from. Buying repair kits from the harbor would be more expensive than buying player made ones.

So, basically the kind of stuff I'd like to see is the exact opposite of basic ships that you never lose and never pay for. My beef with ship loss is that it discourages people from reaching for the stars when it comes to ships. Buying a really cool exceptional high end ship is basically just a recipe for disappointment when it's inevitably winding down to zero durability and likely can't be replaced, or was too expensive to be disposable in the first place. Having to think of your ship as disposable and having to keep how disposable it is in mind as one of its most important characteristics is exactly what ruins the fun in trying to get your dream ship. Having something like basic versions of every tier wouldn't fix that, it would just give you the ultimate disposable ship for free while still putting that perfect custom job behind a huge barrier of grind.

Go play Sid Meyers pirates or uncharted waters. Like I told you in the other threads where you are crying about durability too. Or go play your beloved darkfall.

You obviously didnt do your research before you bought this game because all you do is complain about it. Either that or you bought a game that has nothing you like in it and just want to complain.

People like you come and go like gas and this game needs constructive criticism and ideas from people in it for the long haul not someone who wants to make it into a completely different game before he moves on.

Go now , just go.

[Meraun]

You obviously didnt do your research before you bought this game because all you do is complain about it. Either that or you bought a game that has nothing you like in it and just want to complain.

People like you come and go like gas and this game needs constructive criticism and ideas from people in it for the long haul not someone who wants to make it into a completely different game before he moves on.

Go now , just go.

 

Well to be fair, and i'am strongly against his idea, he did try to critism constructivly

[Slamz]

So you're saying I'm special? Wait! Short bus or "A beautiful mind" special?

2001 was the last time I played a single player game or RPG. I've done nothing but , as you say, combat mechanics since then. I had a fantastic 10 year run in AH before the euro hours became lonely. I never tired from it, if you learn to love the fight the fire never dies.

 

The evidence does seem to be right there. AH, from what little I know about it, had no real depth to it beyond straight combat. Consequently it ran out of players because, I feel it's safe to assume, everyone got bored and quit.

 

To keep a sizable community of players (say, enough to fund a development team) interested in a game long term, it needs to have some real depth (and no serious technical flaws).

 

The best example of which is still EVE, which is why everyone brings it up.

 

EVE is actually an interesting case because as everyone points out, the combat is actually awful. EVE is a game that thrives based almost entirely on the depth of the game alone. Just imagine how popular EVE would be if it had all the depth of EVE and a combat system that was actually fun. People are willing to tolerate EVE's combat system purely because the game has so much depth and community that they find it hard to quit once they start.

 

I'd like to offer a completely different perspective, if the basic mechanics of combat aren't fun, then I don't play a game.

 

Which is why I played Team Fortress 2 for about three months: because the basic mechanics of combat were fun.

 

But "combat is fun" only gets most gamers so far. At some point I'm logging in to basically the same thing I've been doing every night for three months and it has become stale. Do any fun thing the exact same way every night for years and it gets boring, as any girl will tell you.

 

 

What you really need is a diverse backdrop so that this fun combat can occur many ways over many things with many different consequences. Every fight should feel like a fresh battle with something new on the line and consequences for tomorrow. You need a game with meaningful long term plans. Fun combat in a video game is like gravy at dinner. Gravy makes everything better but most people don't want to just sit there and eat a bowl of it every night for 10 years.

 

MAYBE we could do this without ship loss. Maybe we could use port investment and port loss to drive the economy, but ships are "mine" and therefore the investment in those feels personal. I'm not sure we can accomplish that with ports, which are not mine and therefore I, as a player, don't feel as connected to it. Personal victory and personal loss drives all the feelings that make a game like this able to go long term.

[Aubrey]

I figured I'd give your OP an in-depth answer...
 

1. "If ships couldn't be destroyed there would be no economy!" 
 *Correct - because at the moment the economy in NA exists solely to craft ships. Every resource, every material we have is connected to ship building, or cannons and upgrades - which are part of these ships.
This is the classic argument for why stuff in MMOs should be destroyed. It proposes that if something that players can build is permanent then eventually everyone has one and there is no reason to build any more of that item, which is why every item must have a limited life span. It seems to make sense on the surface, but it simply ignores a lot of really important factors.
 *Items/Ships have an unlimited life-span, if you don't lose it. So this point is moot.
a.) Never ending economy
 
The economy argument assumes that the economy in a game needs to be a perfect circle, where just as many items are created as are destroyed to stop those items from accumulating. However, this is a flawed assumption for several reasons. 

*No one ever said anything about a "perfect circle".
 
For one, it disregards human nature. It assumes that if the game includes a circular economy then people are going to settle into a balance of creating and destroying. That simply isn't true though. People will always try to create a surplus and alter their play style accordingly. Players will always try to find a way to play the game with which they can escape the constraints of item loss. They might find a very safe way to farm gold, or they might play in a very risk adverse manner, but they will always try to adapt their playstyle in such a way that they generate a surplus of any limited resource.
 *While surely there are these kind of players, I think it is rude to speak about "the players", generalizing them only to support your cause.

Additionally, that isn't necessarily a problem - one has to achieve this surplus first by working for it - it doesn't just happen and we can not say if it will be easy or not yet. So this point is moot, as well.

You argue that players want to have a surplus and horde, yet you strive for an "economy" where loss doesn't exist - did you even think that through for one second?

The problem is that when you put item loss in the game in an attempt to create a circular economy (*You can't have an economy at all anyways without demand (which is created by loss/consumption), this isn't possible, it contradicts the term economy. Just Stop.) you create a threshold of activity and conservation that players need to surpass in order to settle into that state of creating a surplus that all players gravitate toward. However, the players who fall below that threshold, and simply don't have the time, patience or skill to generate a surplus simply leave the game. (*Another assumption and Non-Issue. So because I can't have my Santisima as soon as others, I leave? That is nonsense. Players have their own goals and reasons to play this game. Assuming that hoarding/farming for stuff is the reason for everyone is, again, ridiculous and unfounded. The "verybody has to be a winner!" attitude sure doesn't help either. If someone isn't skilled enough (in this already SO easy game), too bad for him - can't safe them all.) As a result you end up with a community comprised exclusively of players who generate a surplus despite the games intention to have a circular economy that doesn't create a surplus, and all you have accomplished is lose all the players who couldn't outplay your system. *Yeah, see my previous note... Just because I'm not some master hoarder like the next player doesn't mean "I leave". His success is not connected to my success - anyone can make his fortune here, it isn't rocket science either.
 
Secondly, it disregards the fact that games are not played forever. One of the biggest pitfalls of game design is to try and create systems that run forever, because as a designer it's easy to get lost in the idea of a game so good that people always want more. However, systems that run forever tend to be repetitive, grindy, and ultimately boring. Repetition is only motivating to the obsessed. (*No, you are again making wild assumptions (I hate to sound like a broken record, but you force me to) and on top you over simplify things by saying that repetition is bad in general, that is not the case, it depends on what is repeating itself all the time and how, not if it does - the mechanics matter, same goes for grind. Grinding can be excessively fun - it is just a matter of game design. Also, I fail to see how it could be different and why not losing the only thing one can lose would prevent this or let alone make it better.

With your system, every player could have it all in next to no time and THEN there would be nothing else to go for anymore - and since there is 0 risk involved anyways, why bother?) Most people very quickly discern the pattern in any "forever system" and promptly get bored of it. Ultimately people are simply much more motivated to play a game by the promise of unlocking something new than they are by some system that forces them to get the same thing over and over again.

*We do unlock something new by advancing in ranks and being able to command bigger ships, so what exactly is your point here? Additionally, we can't take that new ship for granted because there always is the possibility of losing it - if we are irresponsible, careless or simply unfit for command. How this is something negative, and how "making everyone a winner" is the way to go, is beyond me.
 
Every player is going to quit playing a game sooner or later, it's inevitable. Every game is going to shut down sooner or later, that's also inevitable. There is nothing wrong with designing a game in such a way that there is a meaningful progression through the game that leaves you feeling like your work is done if you ever get to the end, rather than trying to design a game that never ends, but ultimately drives people away much more quickly because the grind and repetition simply wasn't as interesting as the progress.  *And another claim without anything to explain or support this, what is the meaning of this? You throw out a lot of words but in the end nothing is really connected to this game and it's all based on assumptions, that isn't exactly objective... nor useful.

Who say's the grind and the system (that is heavily WIP!) isn't interesting?

The players I talk to seem to enjoy it.
 
A circular economy simply doesn't work. It may make logical sense, but it goes against human nature. Because human nature is to try and create a surplus, all you accomplish by creating a threshold people need to pass to create a surplus is to lose all the players who fail to pass that threshold. (*Didn't you say the exact same thing before? Or am I experiencing a stroke? Nope, you said it before and I already answered that.) Humans also are very good at recognizing patterns and even better at getting bored with them, so it's a huge mistake to design a system full of repetition in an attempt to make a game that entertains forever, (*Who did ever say this game will run 'forever'? You sound delusional by now, because you make so much stuff up, it is like you talk to yourself. You create comments in response to things no one ever said.) when in reality people likely get bored of it much more quickly if they find themselves repeating acquisitions rather than making new ones. *-.-
 
 
b.) Items don't need to be destroyed to be removed.
 *So they need to be... beamed away?!
There is a huge number of ways to remove items from a game that do not involve simply deleting them for losing a fight. Most of these ways are completely voluntary, and because of that would get a much better reception from players and be much less destructive to the game.

*Uh, where exactly would a sunken ship go...after battle...? Magically beamed back into your inventory? Why would that be better? You never explained this and besides - it would be beyond silly. A sunken ship is gone. A surrendered one (if this condition gets more weight in the future) would be a different story - but we aren't there yet, so let's work with what we have. And again you claim that players would prefer not to lose their stuff. From what we can see in this thread, players are on the very opposite of this claim and why losing stuff would be "destructive" was also not explained yet. I am getting impatient...
 
The biggest thing that is used to sequester items in all MMOs is the use of limited storage space. If you simply don't have the ability to keep an infinite number of items around you eventually get rid of some items. This would work extremely well in a game like this, because if you can only have, let's say, five ships, then we're already in a place where you will have to get rid of ships to make room for others. You wouldn't even be able to own every possible build and wood type of the same ship even, so even if you're completely obsessed with one particular ship you would find yourself having to trade them away in order to try out all the possible combinations.

*Yeah. Too bad no one would buy it though, because... why would he? He probably has it already, or simply builds his own one since he sits on a huge amount of resources because he never had to rebuild a ship, since he never lost one.
 
Of course trading them to other players wouldn't always be an option, so having the ability to sell them to NPCs for a relatively low price is always a good way to actually remove stuff from the economy. So even just by giving players limited storage space and making sure that NPCs buy items for low prices a huge number of items are removed from the economy all the time. *Which would be artificial and why create a solution for a problem you created yourself? When ships can be destroyed, all of this isn't necessary - as we can see already.
 
Another way to remove items from the economy is through "soulbinding" them, which is basically a system that makes it so that items cannot be traded to other players. At that point the item can only be kept, or traded to NPCs, which in combination with limited storage space is a very powerful way to ensure that the item gets removed from the economy when the player no longer needs it. (*Just. Why!? Omg why!? "Soulbinding"? What is this, Fantasia MMO No° 347?? This game strives to be somewhat authentic and realistic - in all aspects - so God no. Just no. If I want to give my ship away, scrap it, sell it, gift it to a friend, so be it! Try to take my freedom and you'll get to know me, Sir!) So all the game needs is some way to make a ship a tiny little bit better by eliminating your ability to trade it to another player later, and that ship is no longer in the economy either. In fact, maybe the specific act of giving a ship infinite durability might be what makes the vessel un-tradeable. *Whyyyyyyy.......?? *head -> table*
 
 
c.) Items don't need to need replacement in order to facilitate trade.
 
The economy in a game doesn't have to be framed as a consumer economy in order to work. There is a general idea that the only way making stuff and selling it to other players is worth doing is if the game makes sure that the other players always have to buy more of it. However, there are plenty of other reasons why you'd want to buy a specific item from a specific player. 
 
Master ship builders back in those days weren't highly valued because they cranked out the largest number of ships to a market that was forced to buy them all, but because they would produce the highest quality of ships. By shifting the focus when it comes to crafting away from mass production to replace lost ships and instead make the effort involved in producing any player's perfect ship (*Alright, who says we have a forced mass-production right now? Because we don't. Believe it or not, but players aren't losing there ships left and right. I wasn't sunk once yet and the 5/5 durability thing already pisses me off because I will literally never lose my ship unless I put it at irresponsible risks. On top, the market right now is only flooded with basic ships because player's craft and craft and craft to advance in crafting - not because there's a market. There is none - no one buys basic ships (noobs maybe). significantly higher there can still be a thriving market without having to run a system where most purchases are replacements, rather than new acquisitions.
 
Deep crafting where it takes a lot of time to make your great works are immensely popular in games, and for every person who enjoys it so much that they want to do it for others there are easily enough people who don't care for the crafting at all and would rather purchase to sustain an economy. *Agreed.
 
The crafting also doesn't have to be ships exclusively. Instead crafters could create repair kits for example, and the system would be altered so that any ship can use crafted repair materials, but would have a different rate of consuming them depending on how expensive repairing the ship is supposed to be. By making a lot of the crafting about consumables there can be a thriving player economy without needing to constantly delete items from the game. Plenty of MMOs have a perfectly viable of economy without ever deleting anyone's sword. *Like what MMO? Name a few, you seem so certain. I agree on the repair kits and that we should craft more things in general, but I am almost certain that NA will develop towards this direction. You seem to forget that this is all alpha stage and many things can change or aren't implemented yet. Crafting and trading is very basic at the moment and AFAIK, they will add buildings later, like mines or other stuff to actually create resources by players, not letting them appear out of thin air (but I am not 100% certain).
 
 
There is simply no reason to assume that a games economy can only function if people have to buy the same thing over and over again. (*Kinda funny how you remind anyone about assumptions, really. Because all you did so far was assuming things, you didn't make examples, you didn't provide proof of some sorts. It is kinda weird actually, I am uncertain what all this is about. It is like you opened a can of worms on a non-issue, only to move the way into the direction of adding indestructable ships because you are either an extremely bad player who loses every ship, or the thought of losing what you gained freaks you out. Weird. Really weird. Also, no one said you have to buy "the same thing(?)" over and over again. I don't even know what you're talking about right now - do you? Serious question.) Sure, it's very easy to build an economy that way, but the game will always naturally develop a community that creates a surplus despite item destruction so you lose a lot of players by putting it in the game, and on top of that pass up the opportunity to create more progress based crafting systems that potentially entertain people for years rather than bore them to death in months. *Duh, I really need some Whisky now. -.-

[Mrdoomed]

Well to be fair, and i'am strongly against his idea, he did try to critism constructivly

Hes being thorough in his desire but i dont think its constructive because he basically wants to tear down the game and make it into WOW on water or his version of it and that doesn't help improve this game it changes it.

I could be a bit harsh maybe youre right bit hes in every thread making the exact same whine about how bad this game is and how its not fun etc.

[Slamz]

or maybe a system were, if you level up you got the Basic ship of its tier?

 

-Like Basic cutter in 7th rate

-Basic Brig in 6th rate

-Basic Ceberus in 5th rate

-and so on so on.

 

Will you woudn't lose everything  a basic ceberus woud still not be able to stand against a 5th Rate  "FINE"  Belle Poulle with 5 Dura's.

 

Hmmm. I frown on this because it does mean that at some point I have paid 50,000 gold for a ship that is rather marginally better than one you paid nothing for.

 

I would be a little more tempted if perhaps it worked something like:

• You get a basic ship suitable for a rank 2 under yours. So if you rank enough for a Cerebus, you can get a free Brig. If you rank enough for a 3rd Rate you can get a free Renommee.
• ....but the basic ship is actually not the same thing. For example perhaps your free ship can only mount Cannons/Carronades of one class worse than normal. Rather than a Brig with 6 pounders, your free Brig can only mount 4 pounders.
• These ships only have 1 durability so load modules at your own risk.

 

I still don't like it, but I dislike it less than simply giving out free, real ships. (I don't think there's enough difference between Basic and Exceptional, especially if the price point of Basic is "free". I would just never buy a ship if you let me have free basic ones forever.)

 

I'm wondering if I'd enjoy 5 fights (alleviated fear of loss) per arbitrary time unit more than 1 fight (full on devastating loss) per unit.

 

There is definitely a balance that must be reached between harsh enough to make the game feel intense versus not so harsh that people just get driven to quit even though they love the game.

 

I tend to think of it in terms of "PvE : PvP ratio".

100% PvP sounds fun but means you're playing Planetside or Counterstrike: there is no environment so there is no depth. It gets old.

What we want is more like 1:1. Or maybe 2:1. Or maybe 1:2. I'm not sure, exactly, where the line is, but you need a balance of depth (via environment, including economy) and pewpew.

 

It can't be all pewpew or we'd be playing AH and Planetside forever.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Slamz

[jodgi]

The evidence does seem to be right there. AH, from what little I know about it, had no real depth to it beyond straight combat. Consequently it ran out of players because, I feel it's safe to assume, everyone got bored and quit.

.

.

Fun combat in a video game is like gravy at dinner. Gravy makes everything better but most people don't want to just sit there and eat a bowl of it every night for 10 years.

Somehow the euro hours became sparsely populated, and I never cared for "Winning the war" or doing bombing runs, so yea, it became less fun when there were few players out there to fight. Kinda like PVP in Naval Action right now. It's there, but it is pile-on PB, ganks and running, mostly. That's why I'm here looking for ways to encourage fighting. The Americans are still doing ok during their primetime, it's not like AH is dead.

Maybe you consider AH a failure, but they started in 1999 and are still actively developing content today. I think that is a fantastic longevity for a game.

Fighting other players is like the nourishment in my dinner, the other things are like gravy. Some are nice and some I pass on.

I live for The Fight, The Fight keeps me alive.

[Byng57]

As someone who joined the game after the Dec 18th release I have been following this thread (and similar ones) with interest. I have just reached Second lieutenant and bought a brig, and agree it is very tough learning manual sailing while under fire from two AI ships. I have already lost 3 durability - the last after about 5 minutes when  I blew up after a broadside from an Ai Snow.

 

However, I don't think the detailed mechanics of the game is the real issue here, but a conflict between different players "vision" of what the game should be.

 

I think a successful game should appeal to as wide an audience as possible. I have TS which has difficult (long !) missions for players who want to pretend to be train driver, tutorials and quick missions for casual players and even a build mode which allows players to make their own routes (and trains if they can) so it is almost a virtual model railway. Granted there are no Train versus Train battles but many flight simulators have similar features and offer a number of alternative modes of play including online PvP all included in the price.

 

With several servers isn't NA able to cater for different aspects within the overall game. Players who are happy with the  "full" game exactly as it is could enjoy it on one server, while another server caters for casual battles which players can enter for fun, with no effect on the economy of the main game.

 

Different "visions" of the game don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 If the OP can enjoy playing "his" game without spoiling another player`s doesn't everybody win?

[BlindProphet]

One of the biggest things that's going to hamstring this game is the fact that people can lose their ships in it. I know that to a lot of the people who are so hardcore about internet ships that they are playing an alpha this is not a popular opinion, but I'm willing to take the hate because this needs to be said. The idea that players should lose ships and have to replace them comes from a lot of incredibly flawed assumptions about how game economies work, and will do a lot more harm than good to this game in the long run. 

 

I'm going to run through all the arguments people make for why durability and ship loss are needed and then explain why those arguments are actually terrible.

Part of the problem you're dealing with is your arguments are full of logical holes. You'll notice I'm just quoting your argument headers as theres no need to make this longer than it has to be by quoting everything.

 

1. "If ships couldn't be destroyed there would be no economy!" 

Your argument revolves around the idea that goods produced do not actually need to be consumed in order for an economy to exist. The trouble with this is that thats not how economies work.

If I can acquire one of everything I want, and they're never destroyed what do I need to purchase? What is left for me to buy? How or why would I participate in an economy? To answer your question...nothing. If I have everything, and it can't be destroyed I don't have any reason to participate within the economy. I neither have to maintain a surplus of goods. I no longer need to buy ships. I have no reason to buy or transport goods. The only thing I have to spend money on at that point is simply repairs.

And at that point there is no economy. Its simply game mechanics driving things not players. The players will eventually no longer need to trade or care about trading as there is no reason to do any of that.

But yes, if there is too much turnover you end up with another issue of people falling behind and so on and so forth. But thats why the durability and ship loss are important parts of the economy. I won't lose my ship the first time I get into battle. But eventually I might. Which means if I want a surplus of my ship I'll need to do trading, which will make me go out and move goods around. Or I might have to pay someone else to. Either way the economy is kept in motion. Goods are still being traded, and things crafted. But not so fast as to push someone out unless they're overly reckless.

On a side note the fact that you state it shouldn't be a consumer economy causing people to constantly create the same things over and over again for them to be consumed, and then at the end suggest crafters being able to create repair kits which will be produced over and over again and consumed is absolutely a hilarious example of the problems within your argument.

2. "If you can't lose anything there is no risk!"

You're incredibly misguided with your arguments here. For some reason you think its high penalties that shepherd people towards zerging and ganking and avoiding fair and interesting fights and thats simply not true. Human nature is what pushes people down those roads.

MMO's have had to deal with this for quite some time. Even when there's no risk, letting people go for those fair and interesting fights....It doesn't happen. People will zerg. People will gank. And the reason they will do this is because losing sucks. People like to win. And so people stack the odds in their favor so they will win. This happens in games where there is no penalty to dying to another player.

Making ships so you can't lose them will not change players behavior for the better. I'll point back to the first few days after the early access release. I'm on PVP one. I'm playing for the French. For the first few days we had groups of dutch players in ships that could not be lost (cutters) just harassing our lowbies. Groups of 3 of them would sit around the ports and jump players when they were going into missions or whatnot. So my group got together and spent hours patrolling and chasing these guys off. And it did take hours because the best we could do is chase them away. They were in cutters. Ships they could not lose. Worst thing we could do is make them respawn in a port....and then they'd be back. The only recourse was to just keep chasing them off so our lowbies could continue to grind up.

So, no losses encourages ganking and whanot because there are no consequences of import.

Now the other idea of if the consequences are too hard it will cause players to leave has some merit, but thats exactly why there's durability in the game...

 

3. "In a realistic game ships need to sink!"

You state realism is irrelevant because its never going to be fully realistic anyways is a strawman.

The game is striving for realism but not be a simulator. You can have realistic things in a game without going full on simulator. For example: Call of Duty is not a simulator by any stretch of the imagination, but it does have realistic things like 'getting shot causes you to die'.

4. "I don't have a problem at all with the 5 durability!"

Ok your argument here is just utterly terrible, especially when you look up at your other arguments. Specifically if you look up to your 'if its too hard people will leave' argument. Yup people will leave if its too hard. And if they're unable to deal with having 5 lives per ship they buy in the shop outside of PVP, having infinite durability is likely only going to postpone the inevitable.

The game isn't trying to cater to everyone. And also see point one for notes on how removing durability would affect everyone.

5. "You just want everything to be super easy, play something else you filthy casual!"

While yes I consider the argument you threw up here is a terrible argument, you're not arguing to make things super easy, your argument seems to just be out of place since the eventual possibility of losing ones ship has certainly not held back the number of port/large battles that I've seen happening on a fairly consistent basis.

[Bach]

I'd like to offer a completely different perspective, if the basic mechanics of combat aren't fun, then I don't play a game. Conversely, if a game has good combat I'll play it for years so long as there are players to lay against

True for you, but even so you have to consider the predator vs. prey relationship of sand box games. To have those other players to play against you have to offer them play styles they want and not just the one you want.

Circa 1990's Ultima Online....nice sand box with loss related pvp and lots of combat. Crafters, explorers, PVE and pvp all rolled into one sand box. Sure there were complaint but in general the population maintained. Some players started quitting and left a complaint of being attacked by other players as why. Ultima's solution was to create a mirror PVE server and a combat only pvp sever. They added insurance so players, for a small fee, never lost anything. With in about 10 months the pvp side if the game was dead except for those pvp players that liked no loss, instant action gladiatorial fight. Basically the arena pvp players. Which are a smaller and more fickle crowd. The game was just dead. But the PVE mirror world was doing fine.

If there are no Econ traders for robbers to way lay then there are no robbers for bounty hunters to hunt. If there is no miners to collect ore then there is no need for the soldiers to protect them or control the mines. If there is no value to the land there is no reason for kings and generals to create the strategies to take it from their neighbors. What's left are gladiators fighting in an arena for eternity because they don't care about strategies, robberies, exploring, conquest or anything of those other styles of pvp. All they want is a sword they never lose and an opponent in the ring pushing the same sequence of buttons over and over and over and over and over....

Your pvp may not be tied to Econ. But mine is. Please leave it alone.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Bach

[Slamz]

If there are no Econ traders for robbers to way lay then there are no robbers for bounty hunters to hunt. If there is no miners to collect ore then there is no need for the soldiers to protect them or control the mines. If there is no value to the land there is no reason for kings and generals to create the strategies to take it from their neighbors. What's left are gladiators fighting in an arena for eternity because they don't care about strategies, robberies, exploring, conquest or anything of those other styles of pvp. All they want is a sword they never lose and an opponent in the ring pushing the same sequence of buttons over and over and over and over and over....

 

I think this sums it up nicely. Some people just want gladiator arena fights with the best gear available. People like me want a real war with real consequences.

 

Sometimes I'm the trader picking up ore.

Sometimes I'm the soldier protecting the trader.

Sometimes I'm the pirate hunting the trader.

Sometimes I'm the pirate hunter out looking for these pirates.

 

You lose the ore trader or the ability to attack him and you lose all of these concepts and are left with a shallow game of gladiators banging on each other til they get bored.

 

I don't just want a ship simulator. I want a war simulator.

[Sturer Guenther]

Go PVE

I actually would like to have every ship with only one dura.

[jodgi]

Go PVE

I actually would like to have every ship with only one dura.

So much sass.

[Aubrey]

Go PVE

I actually would like to have every ship with only one dura.

Me too.

Considering how easy ships are to come by (just capture them from NPCs if you must), I don't see any need for 5/5 (or any) durability.

We just saw that ship sink - how can it just magically return?

[Justme]

Go PVE

I actually would like to have every ship with only one dura.

Until your stuck in your free basic after losing a few ships and can't replace them right away.

It's easy to demand something until you actually have to deal with it.

[Aetrion]

Circa 1990's Ultima Online....nice sand box with loss related pvp and lots of combat. Crafters, explorers, PVE and pvp all rolled into one sand box. Sure there were complaint but in general the population maintained. Some players started quitting and left a complaint of being attacked by other players as why. Ultima's solution was to create a mirror PVE server and a combat only pvp sever. They added insurance so players, for a small fee, never lost anything. With in about 10 months the pvp side if the game was dead except for those pvp players that liked no loss, instant action gladiatorial fight. Basically the arena pvp players. Which are a smaller and more fickle crowd. The game was just dead. But the PVE mirror world was doing fine.

 

Yea, but isn't that the proof that the PK crowd was parasitic to the game? They never formed a self sustaining community on Felucca after all. I mean people still to this day keep claiming that Trammel ruined UO, but in reality, without Trammel UO might not even be running anymore. 

 

Ultima Online in its original state worked for one beautiful moment in MMO history where it was literally the only game in town. Everyone who wanted to play an MMORPG had to go to the same source, so all your roleplayers and playerkillers and crafters and what not all played exactly the same game. But that didn't really last very long. Everquest came out as well as Asheron's Call, and the second there was a serious competition Ultima Online began to fracture. In 2000 there was a lot of serious talk about creating an Ultima Online 2, which was supposed to be a full 3d steampunk version of the Ultima universe, because UO was under threat by all the newly released 3d MMOs at a time where a classic 2d look seemed outdated, and 3d was all the rage. (Turns out that 15 years later a ton of people are still in love with the classic UO look, but turn of the millennium 3d looks laughable) 2000 is also when they introduced the Facets, because that's when they realized people were actually leaving the game because of PKs.

 

One thing worthy of note though, as Ultima Online became safer the value of items also went up dramatically. They eventually introduced magic items of all kinds, and if you play UO now a good set of equipment can cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of gold. Back in the T2A era there were only some very rudimentary magic items that, while powerful, weren't needed to be competitive. A set of mastercrafted equipment and a small reagent pouch cost around 5000ish gold, which you could raise in about an hour of grinding mid-level mobs. If you went with vendor equipment you could get geared up for maybe 2000 gold and most of that would just have been the reagents. A lot of the really high end PvPers also fought with no armor at all on, because they would employ hit and run tactics where the ability to take physical hits didn't come into play much. As much as people hold up UO as an example of a cutthroat open PvP world, it really wasn't anywhere near as punishing as all these open PvP games that come out today where you can lose crazy expensive gear or vehicles. In UO gear was cheap and abundant.

 

The main reason why people got fed up with PKs in UO was probably more the fact that it was just impossible to avoid them. From the time a red name appeared on your screen to the time when you'd get hit with an energy bolt and a halberd at the same time (and subsequently die unless you had 100 melee and 100 magic resist) you'd have less than a second to take evasive action, which was an insane contrast to the slow moving monsters you could kite around the world at a leisurely pace. For everyone who wasn't in the game for turbo-PvP it wasn't exactly fun to always have a possibility to hear hooves, see a red name and be dead half a second later. Also how fast your character moved in UO depended on your ping in those days, so if your connection wasn't blazing fast you stood no chance in PvP anyways.

 

 

Ever since that time in UO it's been damn near impossible to run a game that has completely open PvP without having it relegated to niche status and die the slow death of low player numbers. It's just kind of a dead genre, because the people that really want to live in a world where they can attack anyone want that world to be filled with people who aren't there to fight, not with people who are just as eager to murder anyone they come across. The people who aren't interested in fighting anyone get nothing out of playing the targets for someone else's power fantasy though. 

 

This game is in kind of a similar place as UO was in 1997. There aren't any really good tall ship games out there really, so Naval Action has a draw on all kinds of players who are here for the ships, just like Ultima Online had a draw on all kinds of players who were there for the online RPG. As long as it's the only game that offers that aspect it can get away with being punishing and cutthroat, because people will put up with it. But what happens when the Everquest to this games Ultima Online comes out? Are they going to have to abandon some of their current principles and add a Trammel? And if that happens, will the original game mode survive, or die off like Felucca did?

 

 

 

As far as saying "Play on a PvE server", that honestly just doesn't solve the issue. PvP is required for this game, since the open world content is generated by the actions of other players. PvE servers currently are a fun place to learn the ropes a bit and just experiment with ships, but what's your endgame on a PvE server?

 

Rather than having a PvE server where you can't fight anyone at all it would make a lot more sense to have a server where the fighting is a little more regimented and the rules are more on the side of the defender. For example, a server where only the aggressor side in an open battle can lose durability would allow open PvP to take place without creating an atmosphere where getting ganked by a superior force is a constant concern for people. 

 

Conflict is required for an open world game to work. Some people just don't want conflict to mean that they need to spend every second in the game ready to defend themselves from overwhelming odds being brought down on them. There is nothing wrong with wanting a little bit more of a chill experience than that without wanting to abandon PvP entirely.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Aetrion

[maturin]

We're writing half a dozen paragraphs about other games now?

 

If so, it might be PM time.

[Aubrey]

We're writing half a dozen paragraphs about other games now?

 

If so, it might be PM time.

Yeah and besides that, we also ignore posts from people who took the time to answer thoroughly, because we aren't interested in any sort of debate,

we just want to rant by spilling lies and claims about a title we apparently don't like. Why waste time with being constructive?

[Tindahbawx]

Until your stuck in your free basic after losing a few ships and can't replace them right away.

It's easy to demand something until you actually have to deal with it.

 

I, for one,  dealt with it perfectly fine in EvE Online for 8 years, one of the biggest attractions to me of that game was the perma-loss mechanic.

 

All the people asking, in this thread, saying that the game would have more players if the prema-loss mechanic (5 "lives" per ship at that too!) was removed, but you are also conveniently glossing over the fact that for many players, one of the big attractions of this game is the fact that you can inflict a tangible loss on other players, while at the same time risking a loss yourself if things go badly.

 

I would simply get far less enjoyment out of this game if I wasn't actually risking anything in each fight, and I'll be honest here, I got a far larger kick out of solo-roaming nullsec in EvE simply because I only had to mess up once and I lost big, whereas here, I can actually mess up 5 times before I actually suffer any real loss, aside from time.

 

I'd be part of the camp that would prefer having only 1 durability on each ship, captured or crafted, I'd get more enjoyment out of the game that way.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Tindahbawx

[Xoosch]

I, for one,  dealt with it perfectly fine in EvE Online for 8 years, one of the biggest attractions to me of that game was the perma-loss mechanic.

 

All the people asking, in this thread, saying that the game would have more players if the prema-loss mechanic (5 "lives" per ship at that too!) was removed, but you are also conveniently glossing over the fact that for many players, one of the big attractions of this game is the fact that you can inflict a tangible loss on other players, while at the same time risking a loss yourself if things go badly.

 

I would simply get far less enjoyment out of this game if I wasn't actually risking anything in each fight, and I'll be honest here, I got a far larger kick out of solo-roaming nullsec in EvE simply because I only had to mess up once and I lost big, whereas here, I can actually mess up 5 times before I actually suffer any real loss, aside from time.

 

I'd be part of the camp that would prefer having only 1 durability on each ship, captured or crafted, I'd get more enjoyment out of the game that way.

this....

 

Get rid of Duras! A ship sunk should be destroyed, end of story.

[Justme]

I, for one,  dealt with it perfectly fine in EvE Online for 8 years, one of the biggest attractions to me of that game was the perma-loss mechanic.

 

All the people asking, in this thread, saying that the game would have more players if the prema-loss mechanic (5 "lives" per ship at that too!) was removed, but you are also conveniently glossing over the fact that for many players, one of the big attractions of this game is the fact that you can inflict a tangible loss on other players, while at the same time risking a loss yourself if things go badly.

 

I would simply get far less enjoyment out of this game if I wasn't actually risking anything in each fight, and I'll be honest here, I got a far larger kick out of solo-roaming nullsec in EvE simply because I only had to mess up once and I lost big, whereas here, I can actually mess up 5 times before I actually suffer any real loss, aside from time.

 

I'd be part of the camp that would prefer having only 1 durability on each ship, captured or crafted, I'd get more enjoyment out of the game that way.

I often see in games demand to make it harder, then those who make such demands leave the game because they can't hack it. This is not EVE. It does not need to be EVE to be a great game.

Just as a guess what percentage of the population do you think you represent with this view?

[Aetrion]

I would simply get far less enjoyment out of this game if I wasn't actually risking anything in each fight, and I'll be honest here, I got a far larger kick out of solo-roaming nullsec in EvE simply because I only had to mess up once and I lost big, whereas here, I can actually mess up 5 times before I actually suffer any real loss, aside from time.

 

I'd be part of the camp that would prefer having only 1 durability on each ship, captured or crafted, I'd get more enjoyment out of the game that way.

 

Maybe we should hash out different rule sets for servers where ships genuinely do disappear once they sink, and servers where open PvP exists, but isn't incredibly punishing to people who want to just chill out a bit sometimes and not be ready to fight for their lives at all times.

 

I mean, it seems to me like there is no good reason why people who want to have a bit more relaxed atmosphere and people who want things to be extremely dangerous and cutthroat can't both get what they want. After all, we currently have PvE and PvP servers, so the precedent for different rulesets is there, it's just that right now the "casual" ruleset doesn't allow any PvP at all, which pretty much lobotomizes the whole game. There is just no point to it all without battles. 

 

 

So, just from the top of my head, let's say there were two rulesets:

 

"Cutthroat Server"

- Ships are gone if they sink.

- Open PvP with no restrictions.

 

"Swashbuckler Server"

- Ships have durability.

- Durability can be restored with an overhaul kit. (Costs as much as a common version of the ship to craft)

- Open PvP is allowed, but you can only lose durability in a fight if you entered the battle of your own accord. (If you attack someone, or join a battle in progress)

- Getting sunk still sends you back to the harbor and destroys your cargo, getting captured still sends you back to the harbor and lets the enemy loot your cargo, even if you were attacked and didn't voluntarily enter the fight.

- Offering your surrender means the other side gets to loot your cargo but you aren't sent back to the harbor.

- You count as having voluntarily entered the fight in PvE, so you lose durability if you get sunk by NPC.

 

Maybe a third:

 

"Explorer Server"

- Current PvE rules.

- Overhaul kits.

 

That would give just about everyone what they want without having PvP be the exclusive domain of the hardcore crowd in a game where PvP is really required to have a long term viable experience.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Aetrion

[Aubrey]

Maybe we should hash out different rule sets for servers...

Maybe you should start to accept the game how it is instead of making a huge list of unfounded claims that could even be considered lies, just to have your way.

Why don't you have the balls to say that you simply want it as casual as possible because you don't want to worry about a thing?

All your weird assumptions and claims regarding the game, its economy - or economy in general are completely off.

 

Also, it is quite rude to evade arguments of others, just saying.

[BlindProphet]

Maybe we should hash out different rule sets for servers where ships genuinely do disappear once they sink, and servers where open PvP exists, but isn't incredibly punishing to people who want to just chill out a bit sometimes and not be ready to fight for their lives at all times.

We have that right now... You have 5 durability... You're only 'fighting for your life' when you have 1 durability. If you're constantly being attacked that means you're in an area swarming with enemy players and if you want a chill, relaxed experience you probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

I can play all night on the PVP servers and not see an enemy player if I so choose (it is really not hard to do so). Or I can go out hunting at the fringes of enemy territory and see a few. Or I can channel my clan mate and sail straight into the heart of enemy territory and take on the entire enemy fleet laughing manically as I do so.

The idea that we need a separate rules set in order to have a chill relaxing experience is silly.

[Aetrion]

 

Maybe you should start to accept the game how it is instead of making a huge list of unfounded claims that could even be considered lies, just to have your way.

Why don't you have the balls to say that you simply want it as casual as possible because you don't want to worry about a thing?

All your weird assumptions and claims regarding the game, its economy - or economy in general are completely off.

 

Also, it is quite rude to evade arguments of others, just saying.

 

 

You haven't made any good arguments. All you've done is insinuated over and over that everything I said was purely made up to push an agenda. You also don't have any actual arguments for why this "casual agenda" you're ranting against is a bad thing other than mockery and condescension like everyone should simply agree with you that what you like is somehow superior to what other people like. Now you're objecting to a compromise of different rulesets by simply declaring that people must accept the current state of the game as absolute, and then say I'm rude for not wanting to argue with you?  What's there to argue with? All you've done is attack my character, mocked players who prefer a relaxed atmosphere, and declared all criticism of the game invalid simply because you like it the way it is.

 

 

We have that right now... You have 5 durability... You're only 'fighting for your life' when you have 1 durability. If you're constantly being attacked that means you're in an area swarming with enemy players and if you want a chill, relaxed experience you probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

I can play all night on the PVP servers and not see an enemy player if I so choose (it is really not hard to do so). Or I can go out hunting at the fringes of enemy territory and see a few. Or I can channel my clan mate and sail straight into the heart of enemy territory and take on the entire enemy fleet laughing manically as I do so.

The idea that we need a separate rules set in order to have a chill relaxing experience is silly.

 

 

Well I disagree. Having 5 durability isn't protection from getting ganked a bunch, it only means you have to get ganked several times before it negatively affects you. Besides, obviously the 5 durability solution in place right now isn't exactly a great compromise. The really hardcore players aren't happy that ships have lives at all, but at the same time there are lots of people who don't want to deal with ships that can be lost for good in fights they didn't pick, and can't ever be repaired.

 

It would make a lot more sense to split rulesets along those lines than by having a PvE server that completely removes the whole reason to have an open world MMO in the first place, which is player generated conflicts. The reason why people go to a PvE server isn't to get away from the possibility of PvP, it's to get away from losing stuff to PvP they didn't ask for. Right now the game isn't doing people any favors by making it so that if you don't want to potentially lose ships to ganking you have to go to a server where you can't fight anyone at all.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Aetrion