Single Player and PvE Discussion, 2013 - 2015

[Adair]

I cannot see a way to design a game in which a new player can jump into a group fight with a bunch of veterans and be as valuable as the vets without turning it into a boring kids game. Part of the fun was that you needed to train and that seamanship mattered and didn't come easy.

 

To be sure, the vets are always going to have the upper hand, but the first Planetside found a very interesting way to make that work. Gaining levels gave you flexibility, not survivability. So a rookie can still wear the biggest armor and have the most powerful assault rifle, but that's the only thing he can do. A vet can do that AND drive a tank AND fly the plane AND repair equipment, and so on. In the new Planetside they went a step further and now anyone can do anything. As you play that class you unlock minor upgrades and a lot of customization for that class. For instance, the Infiltrator starts with the basic sniper rifle, but can unlock a submachine gun, which is very handy when sneaking around inside a base where a sniper rifle is mildly useless. 

 

Something like this could be in use here. For instance, anyone can sail anything, but by sailing my sloop a lot, I can unlock carronades, long-barrels, and different types of shot. So I could rig my sloop out with short-range smashers that can really threaten much larger ships. Or swap out for long toms and play a harassing role in a group action. Flexibility is what I get, not survivability. 

 

Part of POTBS's problem was that as you leveled, you never got trained to fight in pvp, and you could only really contribute when you got to 50. So you spend a couple of weeks getting up there, get a shiny level 50 ship, and die horribly within minutes of sailing into the red. A brand new player simply can't contribute usefully until they've been playing a couple months or more, and when they get there, they're going to lose, lose, and lose some more. It's no wonder that poor game is dying. It just can't keep attract and keep people, despite being the best (and almost only) Age of Sail game on the market.

[CJFlint]

There should be a learning curve. There should be a cost of losing too. 

 

With that said I would like to see ship to ship combat be based on player skill, and not CHR build. How well you do in ship to ship combat should be determined by how well you use tactics, how well issue orders to your crew, how well you work as a team if grouped and your ship/ship config. Having skilled officers, ammo/powder types and consumables should help too. Personally I would prefer drift away from the POTBS CHR classes and pvp god builds. Based on what I said the learning curve would be learning tactics to compete with other players, and spending time to get the skilled officers you need for your ship, and modding your ship to your liking.

[admin]

There should be a learning curve. There should be a cost of losing too. 

 

With that said I would like to see ship to ship combat be based on player skill, and not CHR build. How well you do in ship to ship combat should be determined by how well you use tactics, how well issue orders to your crew, how well you work as a team if grouped and your ship/ship config. Having skilled officers, ammo/powder types and consumables should help too. Personally I would prefer drift away from the POTBS CHR classes and pvp god builds. Based on what I said the learning curve would be learning tactics to compete with other players, and spending time to get the skilled officers you need for your ship, and modding your ship to your liking.

 

Our vision is this:

Player skill is going to be the major contributor to the win - ability to plan ahead, calculate maneuvers, control fire and be a team member. 

It will also depend (but less than skill) on the level of the ship, skilled crew, and ship upgrades. 

 

Current version of combat will be improved and we plan to add more depth by including a bit more complex yard and sail management, heel control and crew focus. Multiplayer version will be the same as future single player or co-op versions that we will start working at later stages.

[admin]

To be sure, the vets are always going to have the upper hand, but the first Planetside found a very interesting way to make that work. Gaining levels gave you flexibility, not survivability. So a rookie can still wear the biggest armor and have the most powerful assault rifle, but that's the only thing he can do. A vet can do that AND drive a tank AND fly the plane AND repair equipment, and so on. In the new Planetside they went a step further and now anyone can do anything. As you play that class you unlock minor upgrades and a lot of customization for that class. For instance, the Infiltrator starts with the basic sniper rifle, but can unlock a submachine gun, which is very handy when sneaking around inside a base where a sniper rifle is mildly useless. 

 

 

 

In multiplayer the Rookie will have the same content as a Veteran player. He can use the same upgrades, same ships and same officers. The only difference will be knowledge of game mechanics, and level of crew. Balancer will not put a schooner against a 38 gun frigate. 

On the open map it is going to be more tricky, but shallow water zones and ports will somewhat mitigate this problem. 

[Johny Reb]

I've never played a game without some sort of leveling to it so its hard for me to smoke out how I'd like the idea of everyone has access to everything immediately. I'm open minded about it but how does that fit into a realistic themed game. New Captains were never given 1st rates as their first command. I love the idea of having a crew that has to be trained up.

So, doesn't this vision put you at endgame immediately? Will endgame just be a long grind to level your crew with some pvp thrown in?

[CJFlint]

In multiplayer the Rookie will have the same content as a Veteran player. He can use the same upgrades, same ships and same officers. The only difference will be knowledge of game mechanics, and level of crew. Balancer will not put a schooner against a 38 gun frigate. 

On the open map it is going to be more tricky, but shallow water zones and ports will somewhat mitigate this problem. 

Sounds great! You know I have to say, I have not dis-liked anything Naval Action has stated about the game development. So far it sounds like its shaping up to be a great game. Thank you for response and thank you for your pro-active grass roots approach.

 

I would like to see open map be kind of a no hold bard approach, giving smaller less armed ships the speed and maneuverabilty advantage to escape larger more powerful vessels. Also give smaller vessels less vis or stealth. Just an idea. 

[admin]

 I'd like the idea of everyone has access to everything immediately. I'm open minded about it but how does that fit into a realistic themed game. New Captains were never given 1st rates as their first command. I love the idea of having a crew that has to be trained up.

 

 

What I meant is this

 

If you pick a schooner you will never be put against a 1st rate..  And game balancer in multiplayer combat will take care of that. Of course you have to get the right rank to use a first rate. But once you open it it will be the same first rate everyone else has access to.

 

On the open map this will be a problem if you venture into a deep water areas. But that's inevitable. 

[Johny Reb]

What I meant is this

 

If you pick a schooner you will never be put against a 1st rate..  And game balancer in multiplayer combat will take care of that. Of course you have to get the right rank to use a first rate. But once you open it it will be the same first rate everyone else has access to.

 

On the open map this will be a problem if you venture into a deep water areas. But that's inevitable. 

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Its sounds like you are talking about the initial release. Phase 1 which is more of a World of Tanks style game. I hope in open world there wont be the use of a "balancer".

[Bert Beard]

I don't agree with Verhoeven's  post  # 15 and some of his post  #13.

   

The economy and crafting should definitely NOT be removed or replaced with something else.

If some don't like this part of the game they can choose not to do it............seems pretty simple.

 

Some don't like pvp, but just because they don't want to participate doesn't mean that it should be removed or changed into something else.

This game should be all inclusive for everyone who enjoys this type of game.

 

A narrow minded or selfish approach towards the design of Naval Action will only undermine the game and limit it's success.

 

Also.......regarding new players in PotBS dying in the red over and over with almost no chance of winning till they get good.....

All those magic buffs make it that much harder to master pvp in PotBS.

Something that makes more sense, is more intuitive I think would be better.

I like the idea of a better quality, better outfitted ship with a well trained crew combined with the player's ability to sail and plan the attack as the determining factors for victory rather than mastering all those buffs.

I don't like those magic buffs because they aren't realistic..........I like the way World of Tanks handles pvp..........I also agree, something based on that would be better.

[Limey McLimerton]

In multiplayer the Rookie will have the same content as a Veteran player. He can use the same upgrades, same ships and same officers. The only difference will be knowledge of game mechanics, and level of crew. Balancer will not put a schooner against a 38 gun frigate. 

On the open map it is going to be more tricky, but shallow water zones and ports will somewhat mitigate this problem. 

I actually really like the idea of giving everyone access to the same tools right at the start, and not forcing some kind of grind.  If this was combined with a well scaled cost of purchasing new ships and equipment, it would almost be my ideal progression system for a game of this style.  A brand new player would still to some degree need to work his way up to bigger ships as purchasing them with starting funds would be impossible, but if he was industrious and clever, or had the support of well financed friends, he could hop right in and captain a large expensive ship.  Where the real check there would be, would be that his ship would have a very green crew, and he wouldn't have his sea legs yet, so as you said, he wouldn't really know how to handle it.  This would allow a much more realistic approach to character development and progress in the game.  If you want to do it all yourself, you can choose the speed you progress, but it's all on you.  If you have some help, you can cut right to the end game and get up to speed potentially faster.  This emulates how things are in real life pretty accurately, and would help create an environment that is not only more realistic, but more accessible to many parts of the community.  

[Mimosnigel]

Sorry to say, but the grind will be necessary:

Every professional game designer has to make money. Today, You can hardly be successful, if You charge a monthly fee, as You will never get the playerbase needed. WOW (or SWO for a short time) was probably the last to do that. Potential players won't even try it out.

So the free to play option enters the planing. You need some serious reasons to make people spend money in a free to play game. WOT is doing it by selling special tanks and offering benefits in using gold. ROF sells its aircraft and packages. LOTRO sells new landscapes, characterslots and other benefits. All of these games are free to play. You don't really need to spend money. But spending money helps You a lot.

This game will have to finde a way to make the free players spend money for something. When grinding is a serious task, players will spend money to speed it up, even if they don't have to. Thats quite simple.If You ask for money to accomplish deeds, where You cannot avoid paying, You piss off the low budget players...

Already B.Clinton told G.W.Bush once: "Its the economy, stupid!" but then he blew it....

[Lazy Eye]

I am finding it ironic how some of the posters here want a realistic game but do not want to grind to achieve their godly status already !

You have to grind in an MMO and real life (that's called work) if you want to reach higher goals.

 

I think a single player aspect of the game is needed sometimes people want time out of the community and a single player aspect will provide that. And not everybody wants to go to epic historical re-enactments of a time past, they want to write their OWN history !

Already I am detecting a hint of elitism in some people as they want everything handed to them on a plate and fully intend to use that power to "Be the best" before anyone else has a chance ! This is what kills games the leets (elites)!

[Brigand]

For me, paying a montly fee is just fine. It gives the development team a steady stream of income and it avoids the slippery slope of paying for perks.

 

If Naval Action would ever introduce anything that even smells like pay to win, I'm out.

 

I know there is a quite vocal group of player who say otherwise, but there is a large population of players willing to pay a monthly fee for a great game. This group of players has a big overlap with the player that actively like a steap learning curve and can become very loyal customers.

 

Having said this, I should also note that I'm not against micro transactions for fanity items such as different sail colors or such things.

 

~Brigand

[Baggywrinkle]

"You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day"

 

Clearly I agree with Brigand too much...

[Thomas Blackwell]

World of Tanks manage to get by without a monthly subscription. That said, Wargaming has millions of players all over the world. Though it's my opinion that there are ways around monthly subscriptions, I don't think it should be ignored. As Brigand said, monthly subscriptions will give Game Labs a steady income, and like EVE it will cut out a lot of the 'rif-raf' that would so often give me an in-game headache.

[Johny Reb]

I like the idea of both. I havnt payed a monthly fee for awhile because I have seen no need to but the truth is Id prefer a monthy fee option right now if it had real meaning. I'm not looking to be gouged. So if a monthly fee just meant that when i bought stuff in the store I was able to buy it for 4 dollars instead of 5 then I would never join. Thats gouging me. If I pay a monthly fee I dont want to pay for anything else.

I guess i could see a system set up where the monthy fee gave you a certain amount of tokens to use in the store per month but you have the option to pay for more.

Also, I play PotBS and there are many that just dont have the funds to pay for anything, but PotBS has a good system. It allows people to sell "notes" that can be used in the store, on the auction houses. So, even the poor players are still contributing to the wealth of Portalus. The only thing I dont like about this system is that those players who dont mind spending 1000 dollars a month are in game super rich although they have done nothing in the game to earn it.

[JuxuR]

Finally a really promising looking age of sail game!

 

I understand the approach the designers are taking with the game (first multiplayer and so on and then building it up from there) and I think it is a wise taking into account the theme and scope of the game. That being said, my dream game would be a single player age of sail version of Silent Hunter with realistic take on the time period. 

 

I belong to the gaming segment whose time is very limited due to demanding work and family, which just got an amazing add-on. So being able to play an hour there and an hour here is all I can manage, which rules out games demanding long hours if you want to be competitive and is better suited to single player games in my opinion. So I´m really hoping that the game will such a success that we will see a single player campaign down the road!

 

Ps. Can´t wait for the Kickstarter (or similar drive) to begin! (Any indication when it is due?)

[Hamm66]

I just thought I would drop in my tuppence.

 

It looks as if this will be a game designed for 'Gamers' not aimed at the wider public.

 

I am frankly disappointed.

 

No matter how good it looks or how well the action plays if we are looking at a game where you have to play on line and work your way through the ranks to get access to the 'gems' (or, perish the thought, a chance to ravish the virtual ladies)  I will not join in.

 

There is very large group of people, online players and offline players, who do not want to get caught up in the 'Gaming' world.

 

Players of historical simulators, online 3D graphic board games and the like are eager for game that will satisfy their interests and, to be blunt, they have the money to spend on a product that meets their requirements.

 

I will keep watching in the hope that this will be the game that eventually offers the goods.

[JasonG]

World of Tanks manage to get by without a monthly subscription. That said, Wargaming has millions of players all over the world. Though it's my opinion that there are ways around monthly subscriptions, I don't think it should be ignored. As Brigand said, monthly subscriptions will give Game Labs a steady income, and like EVE it will cut out a lot of the 'rif-raf' that would so often give me an in-game headache.

World of Tanks is really a monthly subscription game masquerading as a free to play game, Yes you have access to the content for free but buying premium makes the game much more playable and the grind much easier to live with as you get extra credits and xp for being a premium member. to run the tear 10 tanks consistently you really need the cash boost which premium gives. I would submit that this isnt a bad model for the developers to follow allowing free content then charging people for "premium" accounts that have perks to generating in game currency and or xp.

 

Personally I am a gamer that is more than happy to pay a reasonable monthly fee to play a game(some where around the £10a month mark I feel is perfectly fine), after all I am paying for game content,server upkeep,development ect ect.

[Thomas Blackwell]

I just thought I would drop in my tuppence.

 

It looks as if this will be a game designed for 'Gamers' not aimed at the wider public.

 

I am frankly disappointed.

 

No matter how good it looks or how well the action plays if we are looking at a game where you have to play on line and work your way through the ranks to get access to the 'gems' (or, perish the thought, a chance to ravish the virtual ladies)  I will not join in.

 

There is very large group of people, online players and offline players, who do not want to get caught up in the 'Gaming' world.

 

Players of historical simulators, online 3D graphic board games and the like are eager for game that will satisfy their interests and, to be blunt, they have the money to spend on a product that meets their requirements.

 

I will keep watching in the hope that this will be the game that eventually offers the goods.

 

I'm not sure what you are asking for. Are you saying you do not want a game you have to play in order to be good at?

[Johny Reb]

I just thought I would drop in my tuppence.

 

It looks as if this will be a game designed for 'Gamers' not aimed at the wider public.

 

I am frankly disappointed.

 

No matter how good it looks or how well the action plays if we are looking at a game where you have to play on line and work your way through the ranks to get access to the 'gems' (or, perish the thought, a chance to ravish the virtual ladies)  I will not join in.

 

There is very large group of people, online players and offline players, who do not want to get caught up in the 'Gaming' world.

 

Players of historical simulators, online 3D graphic board games and the like are eager for game that will satisfy their interests and, to be blunt, they have the money to spend on a product that meets their requirements.

 

I will keep watching in the hope that this will be the game that eventually offers the goods.

So... make the game suit the "wider public" (pretty presumtouous) and ignore the gamers? Is that what you want?

 

Im sorry if this game isnt gonna be like Wii Tennis for you but I think that your fully outnumbered here.

[Brigand]

I've the impression that Hamm66 is looking more for a single-player campain builder / historic battle simulator than for a 'game' where you need to accomplish certain preset goals. I think he would like to be able to simulate 'what if' scenarios and maybe share those scenarios with others?  Not sure though.

 

~Brigand

[Thomas Blackwell]

Johny's Wii Tennis crack made me giggle like a school girl. In all honesty though, if you want an all out simulator, this isn't the game. If you want an easy-peasy casual game, this probably isn't going to be that game. (I say probably because it is still a bit too early to know for sure, but we can all pretty much assume it's not by what's on these forums.)

[Hamm66]

I certainly touched a nerve here haven't I.

 

 

Mr Blackwell:

No I don't want a game you don't need to be good at to play and when I refer to 'Gamers' I refer to the players who do not really care what the environment is they just want the next hot fix to be the 'best' at.

 

A game does not need to either a game or a simulator it can be one, the other, both or neither.

 

I am very much given the impression that this will definitely be a 'Gamers' game with little or no thought given to the many, many people who are interested the real history as well as games.

 

But hey ho this will not be the first time nor the last.

 

 

Mr Reb:

I was amused by the comment that I am being presumptuous in asking for the game to appeal to the wider public, I certainly did not say ignore the gamers but if you think gamers outnumber the wider public when gamers are part of the wider public you need to brush up on your math.

[BungeeLemming]

thing is: monthly subscribtion base is dying. EvE is what? 6 Years old now.The only reason they didng chage it cause they didnt NEED to change their income.

WarGaming found a very profitable way to make a "free to play" title wich is in fact a.. free-to-play-painfully game.

Same goes to gaijins Warthunder. Altho they are messing it up atm (my opinion lolz). You can play fre but well.. You will have a much better time playing with premium or premium planes.

Gamers spend MUCH more game on "free-to-play" games tan on such with a monthly subrciption.. sounds illogical but I can understand that behavior.

 

Naval action will be a game "related" to potbs.A free world game wich crafting/ trading involved. We dont know until yet but what we DO know is about the open world feature.

Now.. HOW will you implement classic premium-features like planes/ tanks or items WITHOUT destroying the gameplay for non-prems?

Many will know: potbs went worse with every patch they made to be a free2play title. Until now they are still nailing their own coffin.

 

I am totally OKAY with a mothly subscrition but noone knows who is with me. And when there are not enough players there wont be enough founds.

 

Remember: game development costs a lot of money.