Players losing ships is bad, and here is why.

[caldrin]

@OP no

[Justme]

@OP no

Compelling argument.

[Aetrion]

This game from my point offre view is not only having fun in pvp but also about driving a war for your nation ans all players are involved in. And the real war is about economy and production. It s really important loss have an impact on players, guilds and nations layer....

And i really think the entire game was created arround this concept.

 

I still don't see why that has to mean that you can't heavily invest into the ships you enjoy and instead have to constantly think about them in terms of how disposable they are. Besides, it's simply a flawed system because it doesn't contain anything that maintains a decent balance between the factions or even the various individual players. I don't see the appeal in a system that intentionally makes fights unfair and come down more to how many players you have and how much time they have on their hands than about how well anyone actually fights.

 

 

What exactly do you think the state of the art was for gunnery technology (either in WW2, or even more so in the Napoleonic era?).

Hitting anything was more by luck than judgement ~ though you could enhance your odds by fighting close in, and by improving practice and technologies - the vast majority of shots fired at effective ranges would miss, especially in this era when pointing was 'general' and aiming by timing the motions of an unsteady platform and uncertain consistency and responsiveness of the ordnance. Even if you "hit" a target, you mostly will do superficial damages due to the small size of the iron ball ammunition. Accomplishing more than minimal effect on target is again mostly down to luck - which is improved by good practice, and fewer blindly wasted opportunities, but still uncertain at best.

 

I'm perfectly aware that their simulation of gunnery is realistic, but that doesn't mean it's interesting or fun. The game makes you aim the guns, giving them lead and elevation, and then randomizes the result anyways, to the point where it might be a complete miss or a magazine hit instant kill.

 

 

Well then they wouldn't be "exceptional".

 

They would be "average". If we make the change you suggest, I recommend we rename the qualities.

 

Was:

Basic / Common / Fine / Mastercraft / Exceptional

 

Could be changed to:

Terribad / Still Really Bad / Why Did You Build This / Waste of Time / Average

 

That way in the end we are all sailing "Average" ships, because it would literally be true. There would be no reason to ever build anything less.

 

Your entire argument there is only true if you assume people devote infinite amounts of time to the game and therefore the game needs to demand an infinite amount of time from them.

 

Maybe you don't earn exceptional ships by simply buying them but you have to actually unlock the ability to use them by earning a whole bunch of experience with that ship? Maybe upgrade modules can be combined to create higher tier modules at a ratio that makes the exceptional ones dozens of times more expensive than the regular ones? 

 

The whole point is that there should be some meaningful way to dedicate yourself to a certain ship through progression. Exceptional isn't supposed to be easy to get in a progression system.

 

 

I mean you might as well say "Crafting has no value, because anyone can craft anything". How are all these poor crafters ever going to sell anything in a game where everyone can craft all their own stuff? Except the answer is pretty obvious right? Because that isn't what actually happens. Because not everyone does have the time or desire to craft all their own ships. 

 

It's no different with exceptional equipment. We're talking about adding some 1% bonuses here or there, nothing earth shaking, and certainly not something everyone is going to be interested in. Tons of people would probably continue to simply buy disposable ships instead of bothering with overhauls even because they just don't care about that one particular ship that much. 

 

 

Is it really that hard to understand that if you dedicate yourself to waging war instead of crafting you should get some unique benefits out of that as well?

Edited February 11, 2016 by Aetrion

[jodgi]

Could be changed to:

Terribad / Still Really Bad / Why Did You Build This / Waste of Time / Average

That way in the end we are all sailing "Average" ships, because it would literally be true. There would be no reason to ever build anything less.

This is accurate and I'm not joking.

From surp and up this is how ships have been treated. No one wants anything but golden ships. Most of the active players with access to a crafter if running around with golden ships now.

I believe I've seen admin comment they're considering doing something with the color scale since we see it as either or anyway.

Anything less than top quality is built for grinding purposes. Actually, it's either grey or golden.

[kumisz]

For that matter, real sailing is fun, hard, etc.

Pretending to sail in a game which handles your sails automatically... I am okay with that. See? Not that hard.

 

Real crafting is fun, hard work, and very rewarding. Pretending to craft in a game is not. Sorry you get the two mixed up.

[Aetrion]

Clicking a "craft" button that doesn't have any kind of simulation attached to it instead of actually building something is not the same as playing a detailed simulation of commanding a 18th century man-o-war which is something you cannot possibly ever do in real life.

 

I personally will never understand the appeal of no-sim crafting in games like this. If I want to craft I play minecraft or space engineers where I can actually really build things.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Aetrion

[hoarmurath]

Clicking a "craft" button that doesn't have any kind of simulation attached to it instead of actually building something is not the same as playing a detailed simulation of commanding a 18th century man-o-war which is something you cannot possibly ever do in real life.

 

I personally will never understand the appeal of no-sim crafting in games like this. If I want to craft I play minecraft or space engineers where I can actually really build things.

 

And because you don't like that, other players are not allowed to find it fun?

 

Seriously, i can't express what you are here or i would be moderated, too bad that i can't find acceptable names for your type...

[beagleplease]

Just because nobody has actually bothered to make a ship game that treats ships like characters in an RPG and not like disposable items doesn't mean there is no market for it. Quite on the contrary.

Eve Online is ultimately simply a poor example, because it's the exception, not the rule. Just like copying WoW led dozens of games to ruin so is copying Eve Online no guarantee for success, as Pirates of the Burning Sea found out.

 

 

Yes eve is a bad example because it's a successful game of this genre that is directly comparable to it, great logic there.

WoW and league of legends are both completely different games that aren't remotely comparable to naval action but according to you these are good examples.....

PotBS did not copy eve, the conquest econ and combat both ship and avatar(which eve doesn't have) all completely different to eve's, being a similar type of game is not copying, and while eve embraces the loss of ships of all shapes and sizes PotBS constantly made efforts to lessen the impact of losing ships.

 

The combat in this game is 100x more engaging than in eve, so what they have the opportunity to do here is make a game that is better than eve.

That is something all those WoW clones you mentioned never managed to do, if you are gonna make a WoW clone its gonna have to be significantly better than WoW to grab a decent amount of the WoW playerbase.

 

But anyway fact of the matter is i can point to a relevant example to back up my point and you so far cannot.

Out of curiosity how long did you play PotBS for?

[Aetrion]

 

And because you don't like that, other players are not allowed to find it fun?

 

Did I say that? I'm here the entire time trying to suggest compromises where crafting doesn't completely replace meaningful progression only to get insulted and told to leave the game.

 

It isn't me that doesn't respect that other people have different ideas of fun. 

 

Seriously, i can't express what you are here or i would be moderated, too bad that i can't find acceptable names for your type...

 

So you're fully aware of how hostile and toxic you are then?

 

 

 

 

Yes eve is a bad example because it's a successful game of this genre that is directly comparable to it, great logic there.

 

Eve is a bad example, because Eve is still a very niche game and not even CCP themselves can make lightning strike twice, as became quickly obvious with Dust415 and them killing off World of Darkness which was basically a license to print money if they had just made the most bare bones of competent implementations of a VTM MMO.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Aetrion

[beagleplease]

Eve is a bad example, because Eve is still a very niche game and not even CCP themselves can make lightning strike twice, as became quickly obvious with Dust415 and them killing off World of Darkness which was basically a license to print money if they had just made the most bare bones of competent implementations of a VTM MMO.

 

None of that is remotely relevant to what we are talking about.  For the record dust didn't do well because playstation only, pretty bad decision really but i'm sure they had their reasons even if in hindsight they were wrong.

so how long did you play PotBS?

[Slamz]

The whole point is that there should be some meaningful way to dedicate yourself to a certain ship through progression.

 

That's not a terrible idea.

 

Maybe we have our existing rank, but additionally a per ship rank. I'm rank 7 overall but rank 2 with a Cerberus, meaning I can sail a Common Cerberus (I cannot sail Fine, Mastercraft or Exceptional). I might still be rank 1 with a Privateer because I never really spent time with one.

 

In the end everyone would still be Exceptional but I guess that's an additional route of grind progression if we wanted one.

 

That's kind of to the side of your other ideas though, because this idea works with our without ship loss (unless you want to earn XP with with a specific ship, instead of just a class of ship. Like I'm rank 4 with this Ceberus but if I teleport to my other outpost, I'm only rank 1 with that Ceberus. I would rather do it by ship class, though, in which case ship loss still works the same.)

 

No one wants anything but golden ships. Most of the active players with access to a crafter if running around with golden ships now.

 

PvE server?

 

I mostly PvP in basic ships because its anticipated lifetime is limited and the upgrades don't seem worth the cost-to-improvement ratio. But possibly if I had more cash lying around I could start PvPing in higher quality ships because everyone likes a small boost in PvP.

 

Do most people PvP in exceptional ships or something? I guess that might explain why they're outraged over ship loss and I think it's not that big of a deal. I'm paying literally half as much as them per Renomme. If that is the case, though, I would say that's their own fault for sailing ships they can't really afford to lose.

[beagleplease]

Do most people PvP in exceptional ships or something? I guess that might explain why they're outraged over ship loss and I think it's not that big of a deal. I'm paying literally half as much as them per Renomme. If that is the case, though, I would say that's their own fault for sailing ships they can't really afford to lose.

 

Its not like a basic ship is useless, exeptional ships are gonna prove to be much less cost effective in the end and that is how it should be.

[Ruthless4u]

Yes eve is a bad example because it's a successful game of this genre that is directly comparable to it, great logic there.

Eve is an AOS game? Who knew?

[Dedlox]

Only if things are brought down to one durability. That's the point you guys are missing. Do you make enough money each fight to cover the loss of said ship, with modules, upgrades etc?

The way you make it sound your good enough to earn enough to buy 3 decked out victories each fight.

I don't care if you lose something permenatly. The fact I can beat you at a whim is enough for me.

Yes, I do actually. I have 3 outposts with 5 captured ships in each that I pvp with, guess what, didn't spend a dime on them. Are they gold trimmed with all the bells and whistles? Nope, and they don't need to be. Do I care if I lose them? Nope cause i don't mind working to replace them because that's what the game requires.

 

And if you can beat people at a whim with your gold pimped out ship, then why the hell are you worried about the economy.

[Aetrion]

That's not a terrible idea.

 

Maybe we have our existing rank, but additionally a per ship rank. I'm rank 7 overall but rank 2 with a Cerberus, meaning I can sail a Common Cerberus (I cannot sail Fine, Mastercraft or Exceptional). I might still be rank 1 with a Privateer because I never really spent time with one.

 

In the end everyone would still be Exceptional but I guess that's an additional route of grind progression if we wanted one.

 

That's kind of to the side of your other ideas though, because this idea works with our without ship loss (unless you want to earn XP with with a specific ship, instead of just a class of ship. Like I'm rank 4 with this Ceberus but if I teleport to my other outpost, I'm only rank 1 with that Ceberus. I would rather do it by ship class, though, in which case ship loss still works the same.)

 

Well, simply unlocking the ability to sail an exceptional ship if there is no reliable way to retain one would exactly be meaningful, because then it would run into the exact same problem as the current progression system. Having a 1000 man crew limit doesn't mean you can afford or sensibly employ a Santisima. 

 

And yea, progression can be called a grind, because it comes down to how much time you invest, but from a more practical standpoint it's simply a way to define yourself. I mean, the whole reason why there is craft XP is because the devs wanted to create a barrier of entry to crafting the top end ships so that it's a reward for people who dedicate themselves to crafting.

 

I think it's not unreasonable to have similar rewards for people who dedicate themselves to specific ships, and it's not like everyone is going to master every single ship. There could also be a progression for fighting against every type of ship, so if you fight a certain kind of ship a lot you learn how to fight it better. That might be an interesting way to shake up the meta in the game, where if most people use the same ship everyone is going to max out their experience in fighting it, and suddenly some ship that was pretty meh before performs better because not everyone has their bonuses against it unlocked.

[Dedlox]

I think it's not unreasonable to have similar rewards for people who dedicate themselves to specific ships, and it's not like everyone is going to master every single ship. There could also be a progression for fighting against every type of ship, so if you fight a certain kind of ship a lot you learn how to fight it better. That might be an interesting way to shake up the meta in the game, where if most people use the same ship everyone is going to max out their experience in fighting it, and suddenly some ship that was pretty meh before performs better because not everyone has their bonuses against it unlocked.

Another suggestion that doesn't work in this type of game. This game has OW PVP, this will effectively drive people to only looking for one type of ship to fight.  Then you run into the issue of people needing bigger ships to be competitive against smaller ships. If that guy has a maxed out snow, then the other dude in a snow or merc have no chance if they just bought one so therefore, they aren't going to engage unless they are in something bigger. The point of OW is that you may be fighting anyone and everyone at any time and you can't always be prepared for it, but against a similar ship, you should have a chance, this alleviates that. But hey, I guess they can add a button at the top that says "Battle Snows here!".

 

"Hey, can I get help with this frigate that jumped me! Frigate? Nah I need more Surprises to level up my ship, GL" Happens in all PVP games with specific goal oriented kills, even in wows when it's kill 10 cruiser day, everyone forgets everything else and the forums load up with complaints but of course that is a small battle room with a set limit on spread of ships, this isn't.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Dedlox

[Aetrion]

If your actual open world objectives are important you aren't going to abandon or disregard them to go after a specific ship. It's just an idea for more long term rewards for focusing on combat though.

[ParaBellum]

It's a terrible idea IMO. There is already a very nice system in place that works rather well: player experience. You fight with or against a certain ship, you'll learn its strengths and weaknesses. This is what NA should be about. Not some artificial "bonus" unlocks for grinding Constitutions.

[Aetrion]

It's a terrible idea IMO. There is already a very nice system in place that works rather well: player experience. You fight with or against a certain ship, you'll learn its strengths and weaknesses. This is what NA should be about. Not some artificial "bonus" unlocks for grinding Constitutions.

 

Then we should also remove crafting XP because it's just an artificial gate you need to unlock by grinding crap items?

Edited February 11, 2016 by Aetrion

[maturin]

Then we should also remove crafting XP because it's just an artificial gate you need to unlock by grinding crap items?

Don't tell me you're going to write walls of text on game design and then make me explain the difference between skill-based gameplay and MMO crafting.

 

Also, choose only one of the following:

• Complain about people rudely rejecting your ideas
• Make taunting troll-logic retorts

[Justme]

Yes, I do actually. I have 3 outposts with 5 captured ships in each that I pvp with, guess what, didn't spend a dime on them. Are they gold trimmed with all the bells and whistles? Nope, and they don't need to be. Do I care if I lose them? Nope cause i don't mind working to replace them because that's what the game requires.

 

And if you can beat people at a whim with your gold pimped out ship, then why the hell are you worried about the economy.

So you don't need a dull repetitive economy/crafting system.

[Slamz]

Then we should also remove crafting XP because it's just an artificial gate you need to unlock by grinding crap items?

 

I tentatively support that, actually.

 

Leveling through crafting is actually creating serious problems with the economy because people are grinding out construction of ships (burning iron, oak, coal, etc) and just vendoring the ship because nobody actually wanted it. I don't know that making people level their crafting up is accomplishing anything of value and it unbalances the economy, so I vote we get rid of crafting XP.

 

 

(At some point most people will hit level 50 in crafting and the new "iron crisis" will be that there is more iron than anyone has any use for. Production was increased to account for all the crafters leveling up and once that stops there will be a glut of materials.)

[Aetrion]

Don't tell me you're going to write walls of text on game design and then make me explain the difference between skill-based gameplay and MMO crafting.

 

Are you saying crafting doesn't actually take any skill? Well gee, maybe you're starting to understand why it annoys people that it bottlenecks combat.

 

Also, just because something has a skill element doesn't mean it can't also have a progression element. A combination of the two seems to be what most successful games use. Even Eve Online has plenty of skills that just give something like 25% more turn speed to a ship.

 

 

Leveling through crafting is actually creating serious problems with the economy because people are grinding out construction of ships (burning iron, oak, coal, etc) and just vendoring the ship because nobody actually wanted it. I don't know that making people level their crafting up is accomplishing anything of value and it unbalances the economy, so I vote we get rid of crafting XP.

 

That's an interesting point, but at the same time, crafting XP is the only thing that actually let's a crafter set themselves apart from a non crafter. It's that significant barrier to entry, and the huge cost to actually unlocking the high end crafting options that's making sure people don't just craft all their own stuff. You have to put so much money down to learn the high end recipes that it's likely just not worth it unless you plan on actually selling ships, and not just assembling some for personal use. 

 

Even though personally I would benefit from crafting XP being removed, it'd be rather hypocritical to complain that there is no meaningful way to dedicate yourself to being a captain of certain ships and having permanent access to the vessels you really love while at the same time saying I want to see the system that allows crafters to dedicate themselves to their favorite playstyle and reap significant benefits from their investment abolished.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Aetrion

[Tennessee88]

While I disagree with you overall, not going to call you some casual loser. Thoughtfully written post. 

 

I am a firm believer that there has to be major penalties, especially when you start talking line of battle ships. I love the fact that when/if I ever have a first rate, that I will only want to use it for major operations, not just lackadaisical cruises. Same goes for other ships in a way. I wouldn't be outraged if there are changes made for lower rates (as long as their are consequences and economy balance is taken into consideration), but I will always want the decision to engage, run, etc. to be in a player's mind. Also, it helps avoid silly troll tactics that go along with no consequences. 

[Dedlox]

So you don't need a dull repetitive economy/crafting system.

Apparently I do, since people like you think you can only pvp in gold ships and you no longer have a reason to complain about it.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Dedlox