Players losing ships is bad, and here is why.

[Aubrey]

I can't answer for him/her but for myself I have no intrest in a AOS version of dark souls mixed with EVE.

It's pretty obvious yourself and a few others only want a hardcore game, one that does not appeal to filthy casuals with families and lives outside of 8 hour gaming sessions.....

That is where I stopped reading.

Come back to this discussion when you got your foot out of your mouth.

[hoarmurath]

No please, explain in detail why that would be a bad thing.

 

Honestly, I am not surprised you struggle to answer this simple question, and instead use empty words to evade the topic.

I know why I asked in the first place.

 

It's not eve, there's no highsec here... and without highsec, eve would be long dead. The whole one dura thing is just asked again and again by the kind of players who enjoy seeing people ragequit a game... Guess what? they are actually the ones that the game would most benefit from getting rid of.

[Captain Obido]

In my opinion loosing a ship is not a Problem as long as you are able to cooperate and play with others. It is not that hard to capture a ship with the help of others/in groups. Also with the missions you always have enough AI to capture even in the most crowded areas.

Also in fights, I assume, most Players would run if outgunned/outnumbered even if they wouldn't loose their ship/durability, simply because no one likes loosing a fight.

To prevent others from running you (simply) have to time your attack and you might consider using faster (but weaker) ships.

[Aubrey]

It's not eve, there's no highsec here... and without highsec, eve would be long dead. The whole one dura thing is just asked again and again by the kind of players who enjoy seeing people ragequit a game... Guess what? they are actually the ones that the game would most benefit from getting rid of.

Aha... interesting accusation.

Please cut that kind of shit out in the future, will you?

 

I don't enjoy pissing in anyone's Cornflakes, I'm not that type of player at all, I am the very opposite, so really... don't even go there.

Oh and I really fail to see the whole EVE or not EVE debate.

Why not focus on this game, instead of pulling other titles into this?

 

Personally, I want 1 durability (or rather no durability) because a sunken ship is sunk. It is gone, it is destroyed.

When I make a mistake that costs me the ship, so be it, hopefully I will learn from it in the future.

 

Do you want to know how many ships I lost so far as Lieutenant Commander?

None. I was close a few times, extremely close yesterday when I got greedy and cocky - but there we go again: Self-responsibility!

 

• Don't pick fights you can't fight.
• Don't go places where you shouldn't be.
• Accept the consequences of your mistakes.

 

It still isn't rocket science!

 

You guys act as if it is the most impossible thing to acquire a decent ship and keep it.

What the Hell is wrong with you, I wonder?

If I wanted, I could have captured a dozen valuable combat ships by now, it is SO easy in Naval Action already.

And if not capturing, you can always buy them, gold is thrown after you like dirt - again: What is your problem?

 

From what I read so far I can only come to one conclusion: The problem is in front of the screen.

[Aetrion]

• Don't pick fights you can't fight.
• Don't go places where you shouldn't be.
• Accept the consequences of your mistakes.

 

Problem is that this advice isn't useful to people with limited time for the game. If you have other responsibilities in your life, or even just a desire to play other games as well, then there is simply no way you're going to find satisfaction with a title where your entire play session might be taken up by avoiding fights you can't win and avoiding areas you shouldn't be or paying for mistakes you made days back.

 

I get it, I really do. To the "hardcore" crowd none of that is a problem. They hang out in TS shooting the shit with their clan, and look at their experience as one that stretches over months and years. The individual play-session doesn't matter to someone who's got their whole circle of friends in the game and is already committed to being there today and tomorrow and however long that game is their place to socialize. 

 

Please realize though that every game has people like that. The dead ones, the dumb ones, the ones where there is absolutely nothing to do. They all have people who are OK with just hanging out when nothing happens. To everyone else though the individual play session does matter, and not being able to get into any kind of interesting fight when you only have a few hours to play, or when you're weighing the time you spend in a game against a host of other possible games you could be playing is kind of a deal breaker.

 

The kind of loyalty you need to a game to be OK with being bored half the time when you log in simply isn't something developers should bank on to make their systems work, especially since it's never actually loyalty to the game that makes people do that, but loyalty to their social circle inside of a game. That alone means that you're losing everyone who has their social circle outside of a game as a potential player if you design a game in such a way that it requires people to go into every experience knowing they will keep coming back no matter what.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Aetrion

[hoarmurath]

Aha... interesting accusation.

Please cut that kind of shit out in the future, will you?

 

I don't enjoy pissing in anyone's Cornflakes, I'm not that type of player at all, I am the very opposite, so really... don't even go there.

Oh and I really fail to see the whole EVE or not EVE debate.

Why not focus on this game, instead of pulling other titles into this?

 

Personally, I want 1 durability (or rather no durability) because a sunken ship is sunk. It is gone, it is destroyed.

When I make a mistake that costs me the ship, so be it, hopefully I will learn from it in the future.

 

Do you want to know how many ships I lost so far as Lieutenant Commander?

None. I was close a few times, extremely close yesterday when I got greedy and cocky - but there we go again: Self-responsibility!

 

• Don't pick fights you can't fight.
• Don't go places where you shouldn't be.
• Accept the consequences of your mistakes.

 

It still isn't rocket science!

 

You guys act as if it is the most impossible thing to acquire a decent ship and keep it.

What the Hell is wrong with you, I wonder?

If I wanted, I could have captured a dozen valuable combat ships by now, it is SO easy in Naval Action already.

And if not capturing, you can always buy them, gold is thrown after you like dirt - again: What is your problem?

 

From what I read so far I can only come to one conclusion: The problem is in front of the screen.

 

Indeed, you are the problem... Ships have durabilities so players can spend more time fighting than crafting/replacing ships... But you are just not smart enough to see beyond what you want, and have little to no consideration of what others may, or may not want.

 

You want one dura ships because you're such an elite player that you don't lose your ships, so nobody should... You're just not smart enough to find out that if everybody was doing as you do to not lose your ships, nobody would lose ships, which mean that nobody would be sinking ships either...

 

But you don't care about the other players experience, not at all. You don't care about the consequences of what you are asking for. All you care is about what you want, and, curiously, what difference it makes to you if you never lose a ship that the ship has 1 or 100 durabilities? It makes none since you never lose it... So why are you asking for reduced durability? Because you are, indeed, the kind of person to piss in somebody cornflakes, as you put it. You don't care about the loss because you're not the one losing, but you want your opponents to feel the loss you inflict them.

Edited February 14, 2016 by hoarmurath

[Justme]

No please, explain in detail why that would be a bad thing.

 

Honestly, I am not surprised you struggle to answer this simple question, and instead use empty words to evade the topic.

I know why I asked in the first place.

When players in a primarily PVP( as advertised, on the front page) are afraid to fight because the price of losing ships is not worth the 2-3x time investment in Econ work that's an issue.This is not even with Single dura ships.

But I guess the concept is a bit to much like rocket science for you.

[Aetrion]

if everybody was doing as you do to not lose your ships, nobody would lose ships, which mean that nobody would be sinking ships either...

 

Yup, this is exactly why the game doesn't produce a lot of PvP right now. If everyone is smart about never losing then nobody can ever win either.

 

People who argue for extreme loss in games should ask themselves why "paintball" is a sport and "bullet" is not.

[Bach]

I think most of the reasonable rational thinking people left this thread behind many pages ago. For the love of God would you let it go already. No matter how many times you say the same darn thing over and over and over your not winning us over to the "no ship loss" argument.

POTBS is willing to offer all that stuff you want. Why do you feel the need to come over here and ruin this game for the rest of us?

[Aubrey]

Indeed, you are the problem... Ships have durabilities so players can spend more time fighting than crafting/replacing ships... But you are just not smart enough to see beyond what you want, and have little to no consideration of what others may, or may not want.

 

You want one dura ships because you're such an elite player that you don't lose your ships, so nobody should... You're just not smart enough to find out that if everybody was doing as you do to not lose your ships, nobody would lose ships, which mean that nobody would be sinking ships either...

 

But you don't care about the other players experience, not at all. You don't care about the consequences of what you are asking for. All you care is about what you want, and, curiously, what difference it makes to you if you never lose a ship that the ship has 1 or 100 durabilities? It makes none since you never lose it... So why are you asking for reduced durability? Because you are, indeed, the kind of person to piss in somebody cornflakes, as you put it. You don't care about the loss because you're not the one losing, but you want your opponents to feel the loss you inflict them.

When YOU have a problem, I can hardly be responsible.

You know exactly what I meant with "the problem is in front of the screen", but sure, play your BS game.

 

Oh and I'm not "smart enough" to see beyond what I want?

You know, from what I read here, you are the last person that should accuse others of being not smart enough for anything, really.

Me having an opinion YOU can't accept has nothing to do with me not being smart enough, but hey... it's alright...

 

Regarding what "others" want.

What do "others" want?

Who are these "others"?

The ~3 people in this thread who claim that not losing ships at all would be oh so great?

Sorry, no, I do not take what they want in consideration. It is called having opinions - just like yours differs from mine.

It works both ways, you know.

 

 

You want one dura ships because you're such an elite player that you don't lose your ships, so nobody should... You're just not smart enough to find out that if everybody was doing as you do to not lose your ships, nobody would lose ships, which mean that nobody would be sinking ships either...

... right.

You know what? Welcome to my ignore list - you are the first, congratulations!

 

Final words for you:

I don't have time for bullshit, nor do I have sympathies or tolerance for people who make shit up to support their own little agenda.

This is the lowest way to participate in any discussion. First this "people who have a life..." bullshit and now this.

There are many people here on this board who are willing and able to participate in an actual discussion where facts and arguments matter,

not devious back-stabs and desperate tries to appeal to some peoples emotions by making shit up about your opponent.

 

I won't waste my time and energy for people who struggle with the basic principles of debating.

 

Problem is that this advice isn't useful to people with limited time for the game.

This is, again, simply not true.

The "people have responsibilities" catch-phrase is so incredibly wrong and stupid and such a bad straw-man, I have no words.

You do realize that we all have responsibilities, don't you?

Some more, some less - sure, but if you can't afford playing, the loss is on you. (Hint: Self-Responsibility!)

 

This isn't elementary school for mentally challenged kids where everybody is a winner and a special snowflake.

This is a game with rules and conditions.

If you can't meet them, adjust your schedule or move along - stop demanding the world to bend over for you.

 

Unlike OP and his minions, I didn't demand anything here - just before some snowflake accuses me of that.

I shared my point of view, my opinion on what I believe is best for the game considering what way the developers went so far and what the goals of the game are.

You don't agree? Fine with me.

 

 

@Bach

You are absolutely right and I will follow your advice.

I tried to do so before, but got dragged in again into a pointless nonsense argument where one side makes wild claims and assumptions and the other is accused of whatever just to evade the actual debate.

 

/Unsubbed²

[Aetrion]

This isn't elementary school for mentally challenged kids where everybody is a winner and a special snowflake.

 

Insinuating that everyone who doesn't agree with you is mentally challenged is a great way to make yourself seem like the reasonable party in an argument.

[Justme]

It's not about what an individual wants, but what is best for the game and it's community. I have yet to see a reasonable argument on how 1 dura for all ships is good for the PVP aspect of the game.

In my mind Aubrey has more than proven he/she can't see beyond their own interest and feels the game should cater to the small percentage like them.

[Aubrey]

It's not about what an individual wants, but what is best for the game and it's community. I have yet to see a reasonable argument on how 1 dura for all ships is good for the PVP aspect of the game.

In my mind Aubrey has more than proven he/she can't see beyond their own interest and feels the game should cater to the small percentage like them.

1. Read the thread. Many people made good arguments. You choosing to ignore them isn't the same as people not making any.

2. Did you just imply that I am in the minority when being against indestructible ships? Most people here said they want destructible ships.

If 1 or 200 durability, is different topic and was only used as an example by some to point out what direction they would prefer.

 

Insinuating that everyone who doesn't agree with you is mentally challenged is a great way to make yourself seem like the reasonable party in an argument.

You missed the point of my example. I didn't call anyone here mentally challenged.

Of course, this is yet again simply another try to undermine posters who have solid arguments - don't worry, we can all see that.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Aubrey

[Aetrion]

Do you really think the 50 some people who commented on this thread accurately represent the 55,000 people who own Naval Action?

 

Do you think the 20,000 of those who haven't logged in the last two weeks are here to tell you why they got bored with it?

 

When I tally up people who like/agree vs. people who disagree with me I still come up with about 30% of the people who are here agreeing with me, which considering how much people who don't like loss mechanics get bullied and told to leave the game is a pretty significant number of people to speak out against them.

 

And forums are always skewed heavily against the more casual side of gaming simply because people who don't have a ton of time to play in the first place oftentimes also don't take the time to really dig into the forums and community aspect of a game.

 

 

 

It's easy to be in the majority if you're defending exclusionary systems that drive away people who don't agree with you, and are even engaged in actively telling people to leave the game. 

[Mrdoomed]

Well this thread has so jumped the shark but ive got a bright spot outa it.

Almost everyone but two carebear seekers looking for a wow/moba game like NA as it is and enjoy having a sandbox game. It only takes a few thousand dedicated players to make a niche game like is successful and im glad it looks like we will have it.

I would venture to say those with the biggest tears dont even play the game anymore if they ever did.

Long live naval action!

[Aetrion]

I hope the more the devs read how you guys celebrate every time someone leaves the game they realize that it's not in their best interest to listen to you, especially considering how many other games with a similarly toxic community died pretty quickly.

[Käptn Blaubär]

Eve never died and will not die in the near future. You just have to cater a niche game to the niche and not to the mainstraim casuals like you are. I don´t want this game to be a casual game. If you like Ultima Online and other softcore games, play them and display some furnitures.. 

 

This game is about dying and war with clans and sometimes you will be able to catch a ship alone on the OW. If you can´t manage this..I´m sorry this game is not for you. You can cry as much as you want EVERY GAME loses players for WHATEVER reason. Stop abusing this fact for your own casual arguements. 

We are playing the game because we LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS and not because we want to water it down. 

Play on a PvE Server and please stop whining about losing a ship..

[jodgi]

lel

je suis carebear

[hoarmurath]

If you like Ultima Online and other softcore games, play them and display some furnitures.. 

 

Ultima online a softcore game...

 

You never played it i guess?

Edited February 15, 2016 by hoarmurath

[Hyperion74]

I sailed on the USA PvP server and made 5K on a mission, which was a good fight. As long as the ability to make some game money without constant grinding is there I see no huge problem. As for a PvP fight, didn't see a fraking soul or sail on the water. Just an observation. I also spent time looking at conquest and ships for sale, and mods. I didn't go away thinking, "God this game sucks! @#$*^&%@." It seems that, right now, there are things in place, in game, to make PvP appeal to us evil care bears. Oh, I'm an evil smoker too. PvP will not die. Single players have a chance to have fun too, either on the PvP or PvE server. When I started following this game I saw the planned Graphics and intended look and was in right away. When it came out in a testing version I paid money that I shouldn't have spent, spouse got a little pissed but she knows how I feel about the glorious age of sail. I tested as much as I could and commented on the forums. I put fourth my ideas for the game. Got in to a huge fight with a hard core ship loss guy and took it personally. I felt like an ass when I typed nasty things at him. We let it go. Saw each other on the OS and said HI in chat. I stopped play/testing because I got bored with all of the re-sets and my interest moved to other games. This is going to happen with a lot of players. I didn't rage quit the other game(POTBS), I just got bored. I don't play this game for the MMO aspect, I play it for the SHIPS. There are a lot of unsavory people who play MMO's (don't anyone freak out, no fingers, toes, or pee pees are being pointed.) As long as there is some kind of mechanic for a "care bear" and frak you for that term, we can all be happy. This game should not either or. This game should appeal to all sorts of players. So far it aint bad. As far as I'm concerned if you aren't playing this game in order to live the life of a wooden sailing ship captain and don't know about Hornblower,  Aubrey, Bolitho, Lewery, and most of all ADMIRAL LORD NELSON, then go away. He was real BTW. This attitude is unrealistic so I won't be butthurt and will still sail. When I get bored I will do something else for a while. I did not actually delete the other game until I loaded this one. I just want to sail. What ever facilitates that I will live with. Whem the MMO'ers make PvP so limiting as to make game play stoopid I will sail. I like ships so much that I just stern raked an ambulance with my dodge ram. (at work med flight coming back) There is always a compromise. There is always a way. I hope that the wonderful Adonis like devs will see to this and not just pick one side over the other. Discussion is good but so is decorum. On the other game forum we often discussed the invigorating subject of BACON. We can have fun and disagree at the same time.

I fraking spelled Lewrey wrong. Shit.

[Balsafer]

Eve never died and will not die in the near future. You just have to cater a niche game to the niche and not to the mainstraim casuals like you are. I don´t want this game to be a casual game. If you like Ultima Online and other softcore games, play them and display some furnitures.. 

 

This game is about dying and war with clans and sometimes you will be able to catch a ship alone on the OW. If you can´t manage this..I´m sorry this game is not for you. You can cry as much as you want EVERY GAME loses players for WHATEVER reason. Stop abusing this fact for your own casual arguements. 

We are playing the game because we LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS and not because we want to water it down. 

Play on a PvE Server and please stop whining about losing a ship..

 

Actually with the new sell your skills on the market thing in they added in Eve, they may go under.   They maybe have pissed to many players off with that one.

[Aetrion]

How many times do people bring up Darkfall when someone talks about open PvP/full loot games? How many times do they bring up Felucca? How many times do they talk about Mortal Online?  There are some games like that that died so fast I can't even remember the names of them. 

 

Eve is the exception, not the rule, and Eve also has very significant amounts of non-PvP content in it, plus a super in depth market simulation.

 

And then let's not forget that CCP hasn't been able to make lightning strike twice either. Dust415 didn't work out, which just goes to show that anything + Eve sensibilities does not equal a better game, and World of Darkness was basically a game that would have vomited money in their laps if they had just created a half way competent MMO with a strong social aspect and lots of pretty clothes to buy.

 

 

 

Overall  I think MMOs are going to develop away from theme park and more toward sandbox, because the casual market is moving more toward MOBAs, and MMOs with lots of premade content are insanely expensive to develop. But I think the open PvP stuff is being taken over by the "Survival" genre, and even there it's kind of the same story as with Eve, it serves a relatively small niche, and it's hard to fully quantify how many of the people playing those games are just on a server with their friends (or highsec) rather than on the open PvP enabled ones. Even the Sandbox genre is getting usurped more and more by voxel games. At some point the classic MMORPG is just going to have to realize that it no longer dominates MMO, and is going to have to really own RPG again.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Aetrion

[Tindahbawx]

As I said earlier in the thread, I would prefer 1 Durability ships, however I understand that it wouldnt appeal to a large portion of the players.

 

Therefore 5 durability is a happy enough medium. I still get to grind down other nations economy over time, there is still an element of risk in the game (albeit far lesser given that at 1DU I'll just be ripping my upgrades off the ship and selling it on via chat), and people who dont like the idea of actually losing things ever are also given some slack in that they get to lose their ships 5 times over before the game puts any financial loss on them.

 

At this point you cant really make changes either way to the system without riling up at least some of your paying customers.

[Aetrion]

I just still don't agree that replacing ships should be the basis of the game's economy. 

 

All the attrition aspects you want out of the conquest systems can be managed by expenses that pertain specifically to upgrading and conquering harbors so that the cost is carried by the people actually waging the wars and it allows the game to adjust the cost of waging war by nations, so that the cost of hiring troops for a siege for example goes up the more your nation already holds. 

 

All the penalties incurred when losing in combat can be managed through costs that pertain specifically to retaining your ship rather than replacing it, so that they don't bar the game from having a meaningful progression scheme within the individual ship.

 

And on top of that by allowing people to engage in PvP more freely the amount of actual fights goes up, and fights are the one thing this game currently does very well.

 

It's neither rocket science nor unreasonable.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Aetrion

[Meraun]

Yup, this is exactly why the game doesn't produce a lot of PvP right now. If everyone is smart about never losing then nobody can ever win either.

 

People who argue for extreme loss in games should ask themselves why "paintball" is a sport and "bullet" is not.

 

 

are you playing the same Game than i do? Iam in PvP and PB's every Night i play. Defending Ports, Attacking Ports Riading ships.

 

i dont know about your Faction but due the "War of all Wars" between Sweden and Denmark (i play Sweden)   i'am constantly in PvP...