Players losing ships is bad, and here is why.

[Mrdoomed]

Somthing else unsinkable ships will lead to ( which i think is whats really going on ) is basically since there are no WOW style levels so that these kids can level up and be mr ubercomelately and bragg about thier gear this style player is looking for away around that.

Basically over time every player will be sailing around in the best most powerful ships available and 90% of the ships and equipment in game will be usless. New players will have nobody to pvp cuz they all have small ships and it will take them months to get thier own. ( they will quit ) Then it will be like every other mmorpg, all the top players in guilds doing daily grinds and raids ( port battles) amd collect the cool gear and log off.

All we are missing is health packs and power ups on the battlefield and clicky spells and power spells lol.

This WILL be a great niche game for a sizable crowd of players and it will last for a long long time IF they leavr it alone and dont carebare special snowflake it up. This game is still in alpha so i cant wait to see even more hardcore stuff like players governing the ports and taxes etc and war between nations that have OW consequences.

This game has huge potential if softies dont ruin it.

[Aetrion]

There are two ways a game can go:

 

Endless economy.

Endless content.

 

 

Except there is no such thing as endless economy, because in order for endless economy to work you'd have to have a captive audience of players who can't ever leave the game. Simply asserting that if people have to get the same ship over and over and over they will be endlessly entertained is just silly. Unless whatever they do with the ship is endlessly entertaining they aren't going to bother endlessly replacing it, and if it is then the game doesn't need to force them to constantly replace ships to be entertaining.

 

The only thing this game can rely on is that the player generated content that results from the conquest system and arranged battles is entertaining, and I don't see those things in any way helped by tacking on an "economy" that is basically nothing but grinding for the ability to actually participate in the good parts of the game.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Aetrion

[Mrdoomed]

Except there is no such thing as endless economy, because in order for endless economy to work you'd have to have a captive audience of players who can't ever leave the game. Simply asserting that if people have to get the same ship over and over and over they will be endlessly entertained is just silly.

The only thing this game can rely on is that the player generated content that results from the conquest system and arranged battles is entertaining, and I don't see those things in any way helped by tacking on an "economy" that is basically nothing but grinding for the ability to actually participate in the good parts of the game.

Thats why EVE isn't around anymore.....oh wait.

[Bach]

Except there is no such thing as endless economy, because in order for endless economy to work you'd have to have a captive audience of players who can't ever leave the game. Simply asserting that if people have to get the same ship over and over and over they will be endlessly entertained is just silly. It's like expecting a person to build the same sand castle again after every tide.

The only thing this game can rely on is that the player generated content that results from the conquest system and arranged battles is entertaining, and I don't see those things in any way helped by tacking on an "economy" that is basically nothing but grinding for the ability to actually participate in the good parts of the game.

Indulge me a moment. I went to the trouble of reading your wall o text to understand what you were trying to tell me.

In Guild Wars 2, no one ever loses anything. Here is how conquest in that game goes. I won't bother with names of region on the OW battlefield or even teams. Why? Because in the end after playing a few months I came to realize every contest was exactly the same. No individual or guild mattered more than the next who could swing a sword, shoot a bow or cast a spell.

We formed up and went out and assaulted the enemy keep. We destroyed their Seige weapons and captured their defenses. They respawned frmed up and came out and did the same to us. So we respawned formed up and went out and did it again. We did this yo-yo dance for hours. I logged. Next day same yo-yo. Next day same. It was fun, but who can do that forever. So after a few months our entire guild moved on to another game. Why? Because the competition became stale.

EVE entertained me for 5 years. Why? Because we captured and held the Curse region for two years. Then along came Goon swarm who destroyed enough of our stuff we moved to another region to rebuild. After taking the new region we expanded to the one next to it. In that year band of brothers guild grew to the point it destroyed most all if goon swarms dreadnaughts and carriers. This catostrophic material loss resulted in giving a chance to brand new fledging guilds coming to power. It was a living dynamic series of politics, logistics, economic and pvp sub games all rolled into one in order to compete at levels requiring huge material commitments. And if none of those materials had been lost and gained? People fought for years over control of asteroid fields full of rare ores that built combat gear. But if none of that material was ever lost? The asteroid field control means nothing. Political alliances mean nothing. Guilds become a stepping stone to that first time of amassing goods and then they are not necessary. So guild and national loyalty become worthless. All psycological effects of not ever losing material gains.

EVE can breed loyal players that stay for years due to what they build and rebuild together as teams. Guild Wars can entertain an individual for a few months before they own everything they need and the competition becomes to repetitive. That's what material loses mean to a contest.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Bach

[jodgi]

[citation needed]

Sure thing! If found this anecdote describing running and the sorry state of OW PVP this last year:

 

...players are really hard to actually catch and kill. Most of my OW PvP battles result in most or all players escaping when they want to.

Instead of finding ways of shoving loss down the throats of people who don't like it, I'm trying to find ways of making people want to fight.

[Mrdoomed]

Indulge me a moment. I went to the trouble of reading your wall o text to understand what you were trying to tell me.

In Guild Wars 2, no one ever loses anything. Here is how conquest in that game goes. I won't bother with names of region on the OW battlefield or even teams. Why? Because in the end after playing a few months I came to realize every contest was exactly the same. No individual or guild mattered more than the next who could swing a sword, shoot a bow or cast a spell.

We formed up and went out and assaulted the enemy keep. We destroyed their Seige weapons and captured their defenses. They respawned frmed up and came out and did the same to us. So we respawned formed up and went out and did it again. We did this yo-yo dance for hours. I logged. Next day same yo-yo. Next day same. It was fun, but who can do that forever. So after a few months our entire guild moved on to another game. Why? Because the competition became stale.

EVE entertained me for 5 years. Why? Because we captured and held the Curse region for two years. Then along came Goon swarm who destroyed enough of our stuff we moved to another region to rebuild. After taking the new region we expanded to the one next to it. In that year band of brothers guild grew to the point it destroyed most all if goon swarms dreadnaughts and carriers. This catostrophic material loss resulted in giving a chance to brand new fledging guilds coming to power. It was a living dynamic series of politics, logistics, economic and pvp sub games all rolled into one in order to compete at levels requiring huge material commitments. And if none of those materials had been lost and gained? People fought for years over control of asteroid fields full of rare ores that built combat gear. But if none of that material was ever lost? The asteroid field control means nothing. Political alliances mean nothing. Guilds become a stepping stone to that first time of amassing goods and then they are not necessary. So guild and national loyalty become worthless. All psycological effects of not ever losing material gains.

EVE can breed loyal players that stay for years due to what they build and rebuild together as teams. Guild Wars can entertain an individual for a few months before they own everything they need and the competition becomes to repetitive. That's what material loses mean to a contest.

Everything you said is spot on exept one thing. When you ask who can do the iver and over yo-yo pew pew casty casty over and over forever.....well the new generation of clicky kids can. They love the mindless clickfest of stupidity and want to infect every game with it. Just look at the LoL amd dota clones..after 10 minutes you have seen all the gameplay you will ever see and people play those so much they now take drugs in order to play better and longer lol. Edited February 8, 2016 by Mrdoomed

[Mrdoomed]

Sure thing! If found this anecdote describing running and the sorry state of OW PVP this last year:

Instead of finding ways of shoving loss down the throats of people who don't like it, I'm trying to find ways of making people want to fight.

It seems the answers you seek are in pve.

[Leviathan]

I equate this to playing poker. For poker to be played properly it must be played with real money and therefore risk. I understand there are moments you can make a play that may not be considered proper, but the majority of times your reads of other opponents depend on your ability to read situations and to put them on a range of hands based on position and pot odds.

 

None of this works in play money poker as people will carelessly jam all in with any Ace rag hand under the gun or reraise all in with the same. It's almost impossible to put anyone on a legitimate range of hands as they don't care what they are doing of if they lose. It simply becomes a crapshoot where almost all skill is completely taken out of the game and you have 7 people all in preflop every hand.

[Fletch]

If you want risk free pvp use your cutter. Let the men who have the balls to put something shiny on the table enjoy themselves. I brought a new Cerb yesterday blew all my cash on it.

I got attacked outside PR by Frenchies. I was sweating but all the frenchies had was pickles and cutters. I sank 2 pickles and ran from the cutters (sorry cant see the point in trading damage with a free ship)

I lived because they did not want to risk anything more than a pickle witch is fine.

If it was risk free everyone would simply have the biggest and most expensive ship they could sail no one would be in small ships.

[jodgi]

But in the end you will no longer be offering serious hard core competition. It will be a more vanilla competition and you will create a shorter lived game as serious players tend too simply try it and pass on rather than stick around.

1994 -> now is enough time for you?

Air Warrior -> Warbird -> Aces High. Some of the players that started in the nineties in AW are still to be found in Aces High today. All you have is PVP, RvR, strategic bombing and airfield capture, yes, you can even win the war. They have no loss and no economy. I think you underestimate people's love of a good fight and how that can be an endgame that keeps you going for more than ten years. Naval Action's combat mechanics are more than good enough to be all a player needs. When you're tired of winning or losing the war, tired of hauling materials and clicking buttons in port, you can still go out and have a great fight.

edit:

Leaving this here for posterity. I left a rather terse but funny reply early in this thread, but was modded due to colorful language... or modded for fun. Been there, done that...

Besides missing the point almost entirely, this is the attitude some of the pro loss dudes bring to the discussion:

If you want to never lose your ship then the easy solution is to play on PvE server and only pick fights you can win.

 

 

If you don't like ship loss I suggest you go find another game

 

 

if you don't want to lose a ship i suggest the PvE server

 

 

Go play wow or something that fits your softer style of play maybe.

 

 

Just go away and play what you like and dont change what others like just to suit you.

I'm not even mad. I wish I could bite back and have a bit of forum fun, but I get modded for forum PVP so all I can do is quote them and let them simmer in their own fat, figuratively speaking.

OP isn't trying to kill Naval Action, he is trying to help PVP. So am I. Some of us have been saying these things for almost a year now, but never as eloquently and thoroughly as our beloved OP. Bless him dear pig cloud!

Instead, let us hear your thoughts on how we are to get Naval Action OW PVP back to full health. Loss or no loss, idc. I just want OW hunting to be a thing simply because I, as an individual, find it more enjoyable in in the long run than port battles and Trafalgars.

Edited February 8, 2016 by jodgi

[Bach]

Sure thing! If found this anecdote describing running and the sorry state of OW PVP this last year: Instead of finding ways of shoving loss down the throats of people who don't like it, I'm trying to find ways of making people want to fight.

No one likes loss. Some don't like to take risks so they run before its to late. Sometimes they don't make it. But the risk justifies the rewards and defines the contest.

When no one takes loss, when no one takes risk and they only fight because they want too...you are describing PVE.

It would be better to implement the changes your are describing on the PVE server and just let them play there.

If American pro-football ever changed from "tackle" to "two hand touch", to remove the risk and make it a competition skinny school girls can play as well as hulking athletes, do you think we would still be as interested in it? I don't think So. But for all the best of intentions that is what you are trying to sell us.

[Dedlox]

So it sounds like we are trying to turn this into a "sit in port, look at ship, click to enter battle pvp fest where only win rates matter, get highest ship, oh no new ships to get, what's the point?". No thanks, there are enough games like that, loss builds substance and I think even allowing you to die 5 times is very generous and gives both sides some middle ground. It also allows people to come together and support each other, as an mmo should. We need to build ships to fight, so we have people that trade, share labor hours, make ships, etc. If there was no loss, once you get all the best ships, there is no point anymore, from my mmo experience. Seems most of the arguments for no loss are people from single player pvp games where team doesn't really matter except for a select few.

 

I say, work for what you want, play what you can afford, and enjoy all aspects of the game besides wanting to just hit a battle button. If that's not to your liking, then a game like this may not be what you're looking for. Maybe suggest they add the combat style of this game to world of warships, then you get everything you want. Let this be...

[Benass]

Let the 500 hardcore players play there hardcore empty server. 

 

 

Us casuals will move on in few months to another game.

 

 

Does history teaches ppl any thing? 

POTBS subs  were lets say 10k  maybe 20k tops. 1 year later  game went to 1 server.  

EVE i have no idea. 

World of tank  subs over 10 million.  

World of Warcraft.  over 10 million.

 

Star ship citizens  The most money razed game  before launch 70+ million $ cash and all becoz they offered Insurance policy  for your ship so u can keep it forever.

 

 

 

 

Im telling you if Developers Vision is  nice game with Trafalga  alike battles every day  they have to remove durability and replace it with Soul Bound. 

 

Or else they will have 500 ppl sailing in empty server.   And all those 500 will be here on forum Screaming at us Casuals who are deprived of fun becoz capitalism idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is plenty of ways to  make money sink. 

Repair ships kits  Rates one to seven. 

Cannon balls 

Sails repair kits. 

Rum rations for crew.

Mods that are lost if you loose battle and sink. 

 

 

Economy  that  trades in Coffe  tabaco  or even Nation specific   recourses.  

 

You dont have to make fucking ships to make  live economy.        

 

This game will never be about pvp. Only about Ganking. 

 

Rant over.  Have a nice day every one.

[Taranis]

Aetrion makes very good points in the OP. 

 

That said, I also agree that loss adds an element excitement.  But as Aetrion points out, there are different ways this can be done.  Example: Local versus Global.  What I mean by this is that resources could be controlled at the global level - not just the local one.  Take a look at Heroes & Generals: you can play war battles, but because your have unlocked a certain tank does not mean that you will be able to deploy it in that battle if your nation/generals sending in troops has/have run out of that resource. 

 

Also, in NA, we see that certain ports produce critical resources.  Consequently, one way of winning the game (at a national level) is to monopolize that resource (iron for example).  The game is in ALFA - perhaps a next level of game play will allow for an end/reset of the map once one nation has been "successful".  I put success in quotes because in this case, the nations start in very different places in terms of resources (eG: Spain versus Sweden).

 

 The two things this game needs the most IMO are: (1) a decent port UI and (2) a political / faction management system.  The first should not be that hard (since its just eye candy we are talking about) - and would make the game a lot more alluring to new players (since the port is the intro screen to the game).  The key to the second one is through the use of clans.  Clans (of certain nations) should be able to have a member / polices / resource / political management system. 

[Blood Eagle]

Please don't try to take away the only form of risk vs reward the game currently has.

 

Risk vs reward drives PVP, it its removed the game will be another lame carebear game.

 

[Dedlox]

Let the 500 hardcore players play there hardcore empty server. 

 

 

Us casuals will move on in few months to another game.

 

 

Does history teaches ppl any thing? 

POTBS subs  were lets say 10k  maybe 20k tops. 1 year later  game went to 1 server.  

EVE i have no idea. 

World of tank  subs over 10 million.  

World of Warcraft.  over 10 million.

 

Star ship citizens  The most money razed game  before launch 70+ million $ cash and all becoz they offered Insurance policy  for your ship so u can keep it forever.

 

 

 

 

Im telling you if Developers Vision is  nice game with Trafalga  alike battles every day  they have to remove durability and replace it with Soul Bound. 

 

Or else they will have 500 ppl sailing in empty server.   And all those 500 will be here on forum Screaming at us Casuals who are deprived of fun becoz capitalism idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is plenty of ways to  make money sink. 

Repair ships kits  Rates one to seven. 

Cannon balls 

Sails repair kits. 

Rum rations for crew.

Mods that are lost if you loose battle and sink. 

 

 

Economy  that  trades in Coffe  tabaco  or even Nation specific   recourses.  

 

You dont have to make fucking ships to make  live economy.        

 

This game will never be about pvp. Only about Ganking. 

 

Rant over.  Have a nice day every one.

Wow, if being allowed to die FIVE whole times before actually accruing a loss in a pvp game is considered hardcore, then that definition has definitely changed over the last 18 years.

 

As for your games:

 

PotBS: different concept and the sony personal info issue pretty much wiped out most of their games

WoW" Completely different game all together, which btw has less pvp'ers than pve'ers, so the focus isn't defending ports and making gold, it's killing dragons

WoT: Basically a browser game for single player pvp, no interaction or community is required to play and be successful, much like cod, wows, csgo, etc., etc., don't need another one of those

EVE: a secure 20 to 30k that has been successful for over 10 years and there are REAL hardcore losses. Most robust economy ever established in an mmo

 

My conclusion, if this game can secure 20 to 30k stable players and have a community, I'm all in. The people that are against it mostly game hop every 3 to 6 months anyway as they get bored yet they only play games with everything handed to them.

 

You need much better arguments if you are going to be so confrontational.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Dedlox

[Mrdoomed]

1994 -> now is enough time for you?

Air Warrior -> Warbird -> Aces High. Some of the players that started in the nineties in AW are still to be found in Aces High today. All you have is PVP, RvR, strategic bombing and airfield capture, yes, you can even win the war. They have no loss and no economy. I think you underestimate people's love of a good fight and how that can be an endgame that keeps you going for more than ten years. Naval Action's combat mechanics are more than good enough to be all a player needs. When you're tired of winning or losing the war, tired of hauling materials and clicking buttons in port, you can still go out and have a great fight.

Then go play world of warships if you want a respawned clickfest and let the people who paid for this game because it said " open world" " sandbox " " consequences " amd so on. If they advertise as hey come get a ship and pew pew over and over till you log off i WOULD NOT have bought this game. YOU read this and bought the game so stop trying to change its core.

Oh and i played AW , wb , AH2 and DoA and all they were most night was spawn rush to base shoot amd die respawn do again until one team stops trying to defend or capture and they leave. Spending 14 bucks a month on those kind of games is a waste but i never tried to change the way that game was advertised i quit playing and went to a game i was interested in.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Mrdoomed

[Blood Eagle]

the modern generation can't handle a real MMO, they must have a theme park care bear resort that caters to their every whim...

[Mrdoomed]

No one likes loss. Some don't like to take risks so they run before its to late. Sometimes they don't make it. But the risk justifies the rewards and defines the contest.

When no one takes loss, when no one takes risk and they only fight because they want too...you are describing PVE.

It would be better to implement the changes your are describing on the PVE server and just let them play there.

If American pro-football ever changed from "tackle" to "two hand touch", to remove the risk and make it a competition skinny school girls can play as well as hulking athletes, do you think we would still be as interested in it? I don't think So. But for all the best of intentions that is what you are trying to sell us.

Depending on the uniforms i would probably watch skinny school girls play football...im just saying.

[El Capitano]

1. The greatest mmo economy was in EVE Online - it had ships that got destroyed

 

2. The risk definitely adds to the excitement of a game - this is a sandbox game and part of the very nature of a sandbox mmo IS the risk

 

3. irrelevant point

 

4. irrelevant point

 

5. it could be said that watering the sandbox down will just cause a slushy mess that NOBODY wants to play in

 

 

no sandbox mmo can appeal to everybody'

 

if you don't want to lose a ship i suggest the PvE server

^^^ this X1,000,000

[Dedlox]

the modern generation can't handle a real MMO, they must have a theme park care bear resort that caters to their every whim...

It's really ridiculous. I mean, I've played games that had certain things I didn't like so I either quit or dealt with it. Now it's like everyone feels every game they play should be exactly what they want...

 

Not to mention, you can easily capture ships and pvp with those with zero loss. No reason to have to use a gold ship with 200k in mods to enjoy it.....good lord.

[Justme]

Basically as it stands now there is no reason for a primarily solo player with a life outside of gaming to obtain higher rated ships. They are cost prohibitive and have no real use solo.

The question I often consider when it comes to the group/clan only( high rated )ships how many players are solo vs group players? So realistically how much of the population can get their money's worth ( both real and in game currency) from these ships that may be potentially useless to what may be the majority of the games population.

Also consider why should such a small development team waste time and resources making ships the majority has no real use for.

[Slamz]

Remove sails repair and I guarantee you will see an overall improvement in open world PvP. This will also increase the importance of sail modules which currently are useless IMO.

 

It might be interesting if sail repair would literally only repair sails.... not masts. So knocking a mast or a part of a mast off someone's ship would be a huge problem for them. They can replace the sheets pretty quick but not the whole friggin' mast.

 

Obviously all this was emergency fixes and was limited in performance but repairing was done.

 

Another interesting option here might be that if you use sail repair, it works like today but you actually weaken it overall. Any further hits after you do a repair will tend to do more damage than normal.

 

This would reflect the fact that "100% after emergency repairs" is definitely not the same strength as "100% fresh out of the shipyard".

 

I personally avoid using any of my major ships in battles against other players because of the risk of losing them

 

Which is exactly what we want. This is the psychological portion of the war Bach was bringing up.

 

You and your guild go to defend a port and show up in Cutters because you are afraid of losing them.

My guild and I show up to attack the port in the best ships we have.

 

Our chances of winning the battle are now much greater in our favor because we basically beat you at the psychological aspect of the game. Somehow you became so afraid of losing that you actually virtually guarantee further losses because you aren't bringing the appropriate ships.

 

In the long term, this is how a lesser team could dominate a greater team: because the greater team somehow ended up with lower morale and they're all afraid to show up with the good stuff.

 

Instead of finding ways of shoving loss down the throats of people who don't like it, I'm trying to find ways of making people want to fight.

 

Making fights literally meaningless isn't how you do that, though.

 

Why would I ever, ever fight you on the open world in a lossless game? Especially at higher ranks where I won't even care about XP anymore and have no use for the money.

 

You're not looking at the long view. Ideas such as this thread might seem like great fun right now, today, but a year later you'd be sitting by yourself in your first rate looking at the screen that says "Online: 1".

[Slamz]

Basically as it stands now there is no reason for a primarily solo player with a life outside of gaming to obtain higher rated ships. They are cost prohibitive and have no real use solo.

 

Is that so bad?

 

Are lower rated ships supposed to be useless content that we all play through once and then never use again? You don't want to see a game 1 year from now where people still sail Navy Brigs and Snows just because they are actually cost effective?

 

I think that should be the goal.

 

I think 1st rates should be rare elephants that people save up for and use for special occasions. They can turn the tide of an important port battle but they're not something you just log on solo and go for a trade run in. I think the future of the game is a lot of people sailing 4th - 6th rate ships on the regular, with 1st - 3rd rate ships being pretty rare.

[Aubrey]

It's also just bollocks to say that ships are the ONLY thing that can make for a meaningful economy.

Are we playing the same game?

 

The whole economy in this game works because of ship building.

Ship building works because their is a demand.

The demand is there because ships can be lost.

 

I would even prefer that ships that sink, are gone. Forever.

No magic "5/5 durability" and such things.

You lose it, it is gone - deal with it.

 

Get better at fighting, or evaluating risks.