Players losing ships is bad, and here is why.

[Balsafer]

And you know this how? You sound like the players in WOT who claims everyone hates artillery lol.

 

I know this because if others have a issue with it like you do they would come to the forums.  You guys arguments is that the game is economy focused which it is not I have been playing before EA and I have never once done any crafting or trading, what did I do? I fought in battles.  I used my yacht at first and when I got to Niagra used that lost some dura and when it gets down to one dura it is going to be my low level PVE only ship or I will sell it.  I made enough money doing pure combat to fund a fleet at early levels and even bought a mercury for pvp at the time. Absolutely nothing is keeping you from having fun as many have posted before stating this and pointed out the system is fine the way it is.

 

 

As many people have stated the gameplay is up to you nothing is stopping you from taking a ship and doing pvp nothing is stopping you from pve only you yourself with your insane idea's that economy is keeping you from having fun.  You lose a ship so what by another, if you don't have enough money by the time you get down to one dura on your ship you are doing something wrong.  

 

When you guys give a valid argument to counter this maybe things will change but you guys have not.  

[Slamz]

So counter-strike has been popular for 17 consecutive years without having a crafting system, but if it had an open world it would die?

I would submit to you that games like Counterstrike do not have the same audience for 17 years but rather, have a variety of people who play it for a few months, then quit for a few months, then play for a couple weeks, then quit again, etc.

What you have to ask yourself is if Counterstrike culture is what we want for this game: casual gamers who pop in and out occasionally for some fun pewpew but feel no sense of investment in the game and may or may not log in tomorrow. Planetside (1&2) are the same way. It's fun but one day I just don't log in anymore not because something devastating happened but because I just don't care.

I submit that there is no real emotional investment in something you know you can't ever lose. If we want Naval Action to have a deeper connection to the people who play it, then risking your ship seems like a good place to start.

 

 

I've actually wondered about concepts like crew being composed of individuals (X-Com style) or ships getting unique randomly generated permanent names, just to try and make people even MORE emotionally attached, so that losing the ship might always feel like something, even if they don't feel they care about the durability or the expense (because they are obscenely rich, for example).

 

We want more emotional investment, not less.

[mortdelol]

This post is really great !! I'm a new player in this game and i always run away from battles i'm not sure to win, ONLY because i don't want to lose my ship.

 

So, the game don't actually give me a challenge, because the loss of my ship i worked on will be too much painful (If i lose it, i stop play, that's cleared now)

 

I think the permaship death is only an easy way to build an economy, there is other answers to make an economy viable (The MMORPG DOFUS is the PERFECT example).

 

This game is simply the most complex in terms of economy, and crafting (And you lose nothing if you die, there is no proper ressources or money loss, but the economy is the most active thing in this game)

[Aetrion]

I submit that there is no real emotional investment in something you know you can't ever lose. If we want Naval Action to have a deeper connection to the people who play it, then risking your ship seems like a good place to start.

 

 

I've actually wondered about concepts like crew being composed of individuals (X-Com style) or ships getting unique randomly generated permanent names, just to try and make people even MORE emotionally attached, so that losing the ship might always feel like something, even if they don't feel they care about the durability or the expense (because they are obscenely rich, for example).

 

We want more emotional investment, not less.

 

I look at it the exact opposite way. There is no emotional investment in something you know to be disposable. There is no reason to care about your ship, if you have the money you're better off using it up and replacing it than trying to keep it alive, and if you don't have the money you're not invested in the ship as much as just not wanting to grind for a new one. 

[Aubrey]

There is no emotional investment in something you know to be disposable.

There!

Perfect example!

 

You did this from post 1, you make up some arbitrary claims where I can only shake my head and insert the jackiechanmeme.jpg, really.

The very opposite is the case, but you simply twist it so it suits your case.

[Aetrion]

Slamz told me how he views emotional investment. I told him how I view emotional investment. We're merely discussing two different points of view. Neither one is objectively right or wrong.

 

 

I completely understand that to him the threat of losing something is what gets him invested in the game.

 

I just pointed out that to me personally the threat of losing something stops me from forming any kind of attachment to it.

 

 

To me a ship in this game feels like a unit in an RTS, mass manufactured, disposable, and fettering if you're not willing to sacrifice it your ends. I want the ships to feel more like the characters I create in roleplaying games. Something I invest long hours into, obsess about customizing and personalizing,  and expect to use for a long time.

 

 

There is no right or wrong there, just two points of view with a chance to try and hash out some common ground where not just one of the two views can thrive. 

[Tindahbawx]

I look at it the exact opposite way. There is no emotional investment in something you know to be disposable. There is no reason to care about your ship, if you have the money you're better off using it up and replacing it than trying to keep it alive, and if you don't have the money you're not invested in the ship as much as just not wanting to grind for a new one. 

 

You look at things in a really strange way man. Why would you put more of an "emotional investment" on something you can literally never lose (if you had it your way)? You could beat that thing to hell and back, play poorly as hell, sail like a complete idiot and be guaranteed to never lose it. Surely you have an "emotional investment" with something precisely because its finite, it wont be around forever, and you got to treat it better or you're going to have to go out of your way to get a replacement, which in itself costs time?

 

You're never "better off" using up the durability and getting a replacement, because the time it takes for you to find a replacement of the exact type and quality you want, with the modifications of the quality level you want takes time. You're better off improving your skill as a captain and not having to replace it at all.

 

A system where people never lose ships puts less of an incentive on people to improve their gameplay, they're not ever actually losing anything, so why should they improve?

 

I just pointed out that to me personally the threat of losing something stops me from forming any kind of attachment to it.

 

Don't be ridiculous. If you're seriously suggesting that, how do you fare in your relationships in life man? Your partner might die, so why form an attachment to him/her?

 

As I said at the start of the post, you look at things in a really weird way.

 

 

To me a ship in this game feels like a unit in an RTS, mass manufactured, disposable, and fettering if you're not willing to sacrifice it your ends. I want the ships to feel more like the characters I create in roleplaying games. Something I invest long hours into, obsess about customizing and personalizing,  and expect to use for a long time.

 

Well then man, you're looking at it in the wrong way, you should be viewing your ships as the sword that your RPG character uses and the armor they wear, as equipment that your character uses. Your character is the moniker that you go by in game, the name that you post to chat using, and the name that people see when you sink their ships. You aren't playing as the physical embodiment of the HMS Surprise for example, you are the captain standing on the deck of that ship calling out orders.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Tindahbawx

[Captain]

Being able to lose your ship is a good thing and makes the game exciting, which makes it interesting and fun.

 

Its not super hard to get a ship anyway you know

[BramtheDutch]

Instead of talking about it for 20 pages, why don't you create a poll and see what the playerbase supports, because thats what its all about, the playerbase.

[Tindahbawx]

Instead of talking about it for 20 pages, why don't you create a poll and see what the playerbase supports, because thats what its all about, the playerbase.

 

Nah man, he couldnt possibly do that, as he can't form an emotional investment with a poll, because at some point the voting on them ends.

[Aetrion]

 

Well then man, you're looking at it in the wrong way, you should be viewing your ships as the sword that your RPG character uses and the armor they wear, as equipment that your character uses. Your character is the moniker that you go by in game, the name that you post to chat using, and the name that people see when you sink their ships. You aren't playing as the physical embodiment of the HMS Surprise for example, you are the captain standing on the deck of that ship calling out orders.

 

Ships are kind of different though. We wouldn't have an HMS Surprise or any other named ship in the game if they were considered to just be equipment by our culture. Those ships are legends because they weren't disposable.

 

This game romanticizes a lot of aspects of the age of sail, most importantly the huge amount of battles you fight vs. the small amount of travelling you do, so to me the idea of being able to get your own legendary ship that sticks around through many wars is a big part of that. As it stands the game doesn't really make that possible though.

 

It's not even that I think every ship is doomed to sink. I'm fairly confident I could use the same ship for months or years if I treated it like it wasn't replaceable. The thing that really bothers me is that playing that way just holds you back in this game. At least by the time you have raised enough money to replace the ship you pretty much get no further advantage out of not doing so precisely because the whole economy is built only around replacing ships, and the amount of actual battles you're going to get out of the game if you're willing to risk your vessel goes up significantly. 

 

That's one of the big reasons why I would hugely prefer the ability to buy overhauls to restore durability over having to buy a whole new ship. Ironically when I propose that people are whining about not wanting to craft generic overhaul materials because they want to build "unique ships". In reality the game discourages you from thinking of any ship as special.

 

Instead of talking about it for 20 pages, why don't you create a poll and see what the playerbase supports, because thats what its all about, the playerbase.

 

The forum users are not representative of the playerbase, and polls usually just end up supporting the sense of a dichotomy that some people try to push, like it has to either be all one way or all another and can't be somewhere in between.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Aetrion

[Jim Bligh]

Go and sell your strategy to the real world economy.

[Tindahbawx]

Ships are kind of different though. We wouldn't have an HMS Surprise or any other named ship in the game if they were considered to just be equipment by our culture. Those ships are legends because they weren't disposable.

 

I dunno man, they seem pretty disposable to me:

 

Fate

After the Treaty of Amiens, the Royal Navy sold Surprise out of the service at Deptford in February 1802 and she was broken up.^[7]

 

 

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Surprise_%281796%29

 

And if they're not sold out of service, or decommissioned and struck, they stop being used because they get sunk in battle ... you know, kind of like the battles you fight in this game. And what did the Navy do when they lost a ship to sinking? Did they attach flotation bouys to it haul it back to port, slap a few planks on it and call it good as new (like a durability kit)?

 

Hell no they didnt. They rang up the shipbuilders and they commissioned a new vessel, because funnily enough, ships didnt have multiple lives.

 

It's not even that I think every ship is doomed to sink. I'm fairly confident I could use the same ship for months or years if I treated it like it wasn't replaceable.

 

Cool. So maybe you should start doing that and stop complaining about ships having durability points?

 

 The thing that really bothers me is that playing that way just holds you back in this game. At least by the time you have raised enough money to replace the ship you pretty much get no further advantage out of not doing so precisely because the whole economy is built only around replacing ships, and the amount of actual battles you're going to get out of the game if you're willing to risk your vessel goes up significantly.

 

But then you say here that you don't want to do that, and instead insist that its the fault of the games economy being setup to facilite ship losses (which is part of the games design) and instead what the game to change to accomodate your unwillingness to change your playstyle.

 

Which is easier? You changing how you play? Or the game being changed to accomodate you?

 

 

The forum users are not representative of the playerbase, and polls usually just end up supporting the sense of a dichotomy that some people try to push, like it has to either be all one way or all another and can't be somewhere in between.

 

So a poll would be ok, so long as the end result is that it favours your line of thinking? I'm allowed to have an opinion on the game and try and make people see the same way, via the forums, thats what they're here for. I don't want the game to be made any easier, at all, its plenty easy enough right now. If I was really trying to push my ideas I'd be making threads asking for the removal of durability completely, but I'm not, because I know that its likely that a fair porportion of the playerbase would not like it, I don't feel like trying to shove that down their throats.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Tindahbawx

[Justme]

Shame PVP has mostly devolved to the majority of players of running. I attacked 6 different players last night, all 6 ran. Some even had superior ships.

Although one was " brave " enough to come back with 4 others to try and get me. Pretty typical night. Fun reading chat and seeing the frustration of others with lack of PVP.

The fear of loss does not add anything, other than an excuse to avoid fights on a pvp server.

[Aubrey]

Go and sell your strategy to the real world economy.

Thanks for my early morning laugh!

[Aetrion]

 

And if they're not sold out of service, or decommissioned and struck, they stop being used because they get sunk in battle ... you know, kind of like the battles you fight in this game. And what did the Navy do when they lost a ship to sinking? Did they attach flotation bouys to it haul it back to port, slap a few planks on it and call it good as new (like a durability kit)?

 

Hell no they didnt. They rang up the shipbuilders and they commissioned a new vessel, because funnily enough, ships didnt have multiple lives.

 

Totally pointless realism argument the second you take into account that the number of naval battles fought in all of human history is small compared to the number of naval battles fought in a single day in Naval Action.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles

 

In a game where the number of battles is easily 100,000 times higher than reality you just can't really expect things to be equally lethal.

 

But then you say here that you don't want to do that, and instead insist that its the fault of the games economy being setup to facilite ship losses (which is part of the games design) and instead what the game to change to accomodate your unwillingness to change your playstyle.

 

Which is easier? You changing how you play? Or the game being changed to accomodate you?

 

Well if your response to anything in the game is to simply change your play style why are you arguing with me? Wouldn't bother you if I got my way, you'd just change your playstyle right?

 

So a poll would be ok, so long as the end result is that it favours your line of thinking? I'm allowed to have an opinion on the game and try and make people see the same way, via the forums, thats what they're here for. I don't want the game to be made any easier, at all, its plenty easy enough right now. If I was really trying to push my ideas I'd be making threads asking for the removal of durability completely, but I'm not, because I know that its likely that a fair porportion of the playerbase would not like it, I don't feel like trying to shove that down their throats.

 

A poll is never a good way to ascertain how a game should be developed because you have no way to make sure everyone who might ever buy your game votes, and the mere act of writing out options only serves to make it seem like it isn't a spectrum of ideas, but only a few mutually exclusive ones.

 

I don't want the game to be easier either. I just don't like that all that the loss of ships accomplishes currently is to stop people from engaging in fair fights and instead just try to gank each other, and then the entire thing is offset only by disposable mass manufactured ships instead of cool custom vessels that you can really care about.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Aetrion

[Reonhato]

 

 

 

 

 

A poll is never a good way to ascertain how a game should be developed because you have no way to make sure everyone who might ever buy your game votes, and the mere act of writing out options only serves to make it seem like it isn't a spectrum of ideas, but only a few mutually exclusive ones.

 

 

 

 

Ahh you know that isn't how polls work right. With the upcoming election in the US there are polls everywhere, I am not sure you are aware of this, but they don't actually survey every single american voter. In fact the number of people surveyed can often be measured in the hundreds or at most a few thousand. Yet most polls are considered fairly accurate.

 

I know you don't actually think a poll has to include every person to be useful though. You just know that a poll would not even be close to being in your favour.

 

You should have at least tried to argue that forum users are not an accurate representation of the playerbase, that has been an issue for many games in the past.

[Tindahbawx]

In a game where the number of battles is easily 100,000 times higher than reality you just can't really expect things to be equally lethal.

I don't follow your reasoning here, why should the battles be less lethal simply because theres more of them going on?

 

Well if your response to anything in the game is to simply change your play style why are you arguing with me? Wouldn't bother you if I got my way, you'd just change your playstyle right?

 

It would bother me, because it would make the game easier, make losses mean less and make me get less enjoyment out of sinking other peoples stuff, if I know they can just sail back out in the same ship 2 minutes later. Theres no amount of changing playstyle that can fix that.

 

 

A poll is never a good way to ascertain how a game should be developed because you have no way to make sure everyone who might ever buy your game votes, and the mere act of writing out options only serves to make it seem like it isn't a spectrum of ideas, but only a few mutually exclusive ones.

 

This is because some people feel more passionately about the game than others. If you lie in the middle ground you generally don't give enough of a toss either way to make an issue of it.

 

 

I just don't like that all that the loss of ships accomplishes currently is to stop people from engaging in fair fights and instead just try to gank each other

 

Why on earth would I want to engage in a fair fight instead of trying to screw the opponent over the the best of my ability? Say, for example, I'm in a Snow and get attacked by a Navy Brig and a pair of Snows, I ask in Nation chat for anyone nearby to help, I dont say "Hey guys, could one Navy Brig and One Snow come to help me, but no more because I want to the fight to be equal and fair." Theres just no way thats going to happen, I try and escalate the fight, because I've got to assume that the enemy is also attempting to escalate the fight, even though I'm already outnumbered. Its just common sense to try and inflict more damamge on your enemy than your own team takes, in an attempt to try and grind down their national economy to enable your nation to expand further and take more ports.

 

The only people you are likely to find playing "fair" in this game are, ironically enough, some of the solo-roaming pirates, who do it for the thrill of the fight and the prospect of a potential loss on their balance sheet should they lose.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Tindahbawx

[Bartholomew Badgerbeard]

 

 

 

 

 

I don't want the game to be easier either. I just don't like that all that the loss of ships accomplishes currently is to stop people from engaging in fair fights and instead just try to gank each other, and then the entire thing is offset only by disposable mass manufactured ships instead of cool custom vessels that you can really care about.

 

 

I'm honestly curious as to how many people run because they don't want to lose their ship compared to how many run because they just don't like losing at all?

 

I've played a few different games which did not have permanent loss, all of them had gankers/ griefers/ runners etc in droves. Competitive people tend to like to win, and having a numbers/ firepower advantage lends itself to winning, ganking weaker foes is a standard tactic in every game I've ever played regardless of permanent loss. Running to avoid an (almost) certain loss is also common in games where permanent loss isn't an issue.

 

I've ran from fights even when I had (or appeared to have) an advantage, for no other reason than I just wasn't interested in having a fight at that time, either I was approaching the end of a gaming session and had other things I wanted to do before log-off, or I just wasn't in the mood....nothing to do with not wanting to lose my ship.  I'm a supporter of permanent loss even though I don't generate income all that fast due to limited game-time. For me, the prospect of losing something I've had to "work" to get adds considerable excitement to a fight, but that's a personal thing certainly.

 

In this forum I've seen people make suggestion that to me strike at the heart of what the devs intend this game to be. Is it going to be an Age of Sail MOBA?...Seen several suggestions that just seem to want to turn this game in to "World Of Tall Ships" , basically just sea-trials+ a garage, and the game is ready to rock out as a FTP WoT clone.

 

There are people who seem to want it to be more like World of Warcraft, just a load of NPC stuff, no loss, a joke of an economy/ crafting system,  and some PvP tagged on as an afterthought.

 

Still more want EvE, which despite being one of the best examples of a player driven economy, with combat that can change the political "geography" of huge areas of the map, has several advantages that would make it rather hard to emulate in Naval Action (the sheer size/ scope of the available playing area being a significant difference).

 

Everyone has their own idea of what the game should be like (I lean towards an Eve-style system myself, with mechanics in place to counter the effect of a significantly smaller game "world"), simply because I do feel that for a game to hold my interest for an extended period of time, it needs to have multi-faceted gameplay. Most games I've come across just don't measure up all that favourably in comparison. WoT gets dull quickly if you're not in the mood to PvP. WoW gets dull quickly if you have any kind of interest in crafting (with a purpose beyond power-leveling to gain one or two items which can only be used by yourself) or PvP, because WoW pvp in my experience is ultimately meaningless, there is no risk or excitement in it for me.

 

Eve, well I stopped playing Eve because my wife threatened to divorce me if I ever logged into it again (seriously, I was a little obsessive at the time), but I still think it's the most involved, and involving game I've ever come across. The importance of interaction between players, be they friend or foe, gives a far greater feeling of "purpose" to the game. However EvE would collapse very quickly without permanent loss, it drives everything, economy, crafting, territorial disputes...everything. The more people are invested in what they do in game, the more incentive they have to protect that investment. It' may not be a game model for everyone, and it may not be the game model the devs decide to go with for NA, but I for one think it's a move in the right direction.

 

Personal opinion of course, but then pretty much everything in this thread is little more than personal opinion, so decided to throw mine in for the hell of it

 

Peace.

[Aetrion]

I like what Eve sets up in terms of an endgame, the ability to go out and start an empire and so on are all very appealing aspects of that game to me. What I don't like about Eve is how minimally expressive it is and how it makes the primary loss mechanic all about the ships you need to interact with the world rather than other things.

 

I prefer a system more akin to Ultima Online, which had a significantly more expressive quality to it, in the fact that you could really customize your character. You could create a unique look and skill set and identity, and build a home to represent yourself. The game undestood that the expressive qualities of the game only work when they aren't destroyed, and instead found other ways to have ongoing consumption.

 

To me personally since the ship is the thing you always control, the thing that people see when they interact with you or when they fight you it's the canvas that you should be using to define yourself, not a generic thing that looks the same for everyone. That necessitates being able to keep it around. 

 

I think the really huge cost factor in the game should kick in with things like building fortifications or harbour improvements. The things you do to actually conquer parts of the world and make them your domain are where your resources go. The avatar you control to make that happen on the other hand should be far more substantial and lasting.

 

 

I don't really think my sensibilities are fundamentally different, they just have that extra element of an expressive avatar, which to me adds huge value to the game.

[Balsafer]

I like what Eve sets up in terms of an endgame, the ability to go out and start an empire and so on are all very appealing aspects of that game to me. What I don't like about Eve is how minimally expressive it is and how it makes the primary loss mechanic all about the ships you need to interact with the world rather than other things.

 

I prefer a system more akin to Ultima Online, which had a significantly more expressive quality to it, in the fact that you could really customize your character. You could create a unique look and skill set and identity, and build a home to represent yourself. The game undestood that the expressive qualities of the game only work when they aren't destroyed, and instead found other ways to have ongoing consumption.

 

To me personally since the ship is the thing you always control, the thing that people see when they interact with you or when they fight you it's the canvas that you should be using to define yourself, not a generic thing that looks the same for everyone. That necessitates being able to keep it around. 

 

I think the really huge cost factor in the game should kick in with things like building fortifications or harbour improvements. The things you do to actually conquer parts of the world and make them your domain are where your resources go. The avatar you control to make that happen on the other hand should be far more substantial and lasting.

 

 

I don't really think my sensibilities are fundamentally different, they just have that extra element of an expressive avatar, which to me adds huge value to the game.

 

Sail patterns and the ability to customize the look of your ship will come in due time.

[Aetrion]

Sail patterns and the ability to customize the look of your ship will come in due time.

 

That would be great, but I'd still argue that ships need to be more permanent and at least allow you to spend resources on overhauling them rather than replacing them completely before customizing one becomes a really enjoyable experience.

[Justme]

Funny thing, over the past week I tried to engage in 2 dozens pvp battles.

Of the 24, only 4 fought. Pm'd the remaining 20 asking why they ran.

5 did not respond.

1 did in Spanish so could not read.

4 responded they did not have time to battle.

2 admitted fighting is only fun it you have an overwhelming majority.

Other 8 responded it was not risking a life/dura on their ship.

Thoughts on this?

And yes I'm aware it's a small sample size.

[Aetrion]

That's pretty much the same as my experience playing Eve Online. Only extremely rich players could have an all out battle for the fun of it, most fights were just people ganking whoever they could catch off guard so there would be no risk to themselves.

 

For me the reason why the notion of an all out war of attrition in a game like this is ultimately unacceptable is because the casualties are peoples grades and health and social lives. Any game that ultimately measures you by how much you play over how well you play is total cancer in your life if you want to win.

[Balsafer]

That would be great, but I'd still argue that ships need to be more permanent and at least allow you to spend resources on overhauling them rather than replacing them completely before customizing one becomes a really enjoyable experience.

 

People don't wan't to just craft repair kits and food or whatever they wan't to build ships also, if no one ever loses their ship no point to build them.  Also the 5 dura is acting like the repair kits you suggest I may add.

 

Funny thing, over the past week I tried to engage in 2 dozens pvp battles.

Of the 24, only 4 fought. Pm'd the remaining 20 asking why they ran.

5 did not respond.

1 did in Spanish so could not read.

4 responded they did not have time to battle.

2 admitted fighting is only fun it you have an overwhelming majority.

Other 8 responded it was not risking a life/dura on their ship.

Thoughts on this?

And yes I'm aware it's a small sample size.

 

Maybe they just got the ship? or wan't to use it for port battles?

That's pretty much the same as my experience playing Eve Online. Only extremely rich players could have an all out battle for the fun of it, most fights were just people ganking whoever they could catch off guard so there would be no risk to themselves.

 

For me the reason why the notion of an all out war of attrition in a game like this is ultimately unacceptable is because the casualties are peoples grades and health and social lives. Any game that ultimately measures you by how much you play over how well you play is total cancer in your life if you want to win.

 

It is a cancer if you let it, I'am in no rush to get the biggest ship i will get there eventually and I can still contribute to battles in a frigate.