Single Player and PvE Discussion, 2013 - 2015

[admin]

Let's be nice to each other.

 

First iterations of the game will be multiplayer only. AI will be in game but majority of content will be created by players (it is just faster this way). 

Eventually we will code single player content (or private servers so to speak).

[Johny Reb]

"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." -Hamm66

 

The message in your first post didnt at all indicate what your saying here. I like what your saying here alot more than what you said before. But what do you mean by "what the environment is" In fact, no disrespect intended, but I still cant figure out what you want out of the game. It just sounds like a personal beef with those you label "gamers".

 

"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." Hamm66

 

I think my math is accurate enough with the following stipulations:

1. Those who dont play games at all other than solitaire and bubbles are not factored in: why would you?

2. Those that only play console games are not factored in: This is not a nintendo game or a playstation game. Its a PC game. So those that dont play PC games are irrelevent.

3. Those that are below the age of maturity are not factored in: Unless you want all the boats to be crewed by barbie dolls, and all the ships to have faces and talk.

 

This leaves a much smaller "wider public." And even if I'm wrong, those that seem most interested in this game want whats being developed not a single player action game or whatever you want. During my time on the forums, Ive only ran across one other that seemed to want an arcade styled game and the poll that was created indicates that this growing fan base isnt really interested in a game like that.

 

All this being said, I feel I have come at you a little more aggressive than I have intended so I'm sorry for that. We may have drastic differences in what type game we are looking for but I'm sure you still have some ideas that could make this game even better than it sounds like it could be.

[Johny Reb]

No need to respond to the above post Hamm66. I just saw your conversation in another thread and you make yourself crystal clear about what is on your mind and that invalidates a few things I said in previous posts. I see your not wishing to get rid of the MMO but rather have single player side coexist with it. I misjudged you.

[Hamm66]

No worries mate, no offence taken and no offence intended.

 

Just a difference in opinion and the world need that.

[Chustler]

Awww You guys! 

 

Personally the games I have the most fun at are the ones where I stand to lose something against a human opponent.  I love many single player games out there, but no matter how well they are made, they never get the blood pumping the way a tense pvp situation in POTBS did.

 

That's all I really need to say on this topic.  

[Pepper Spray]

Yes I agree, when there is risk it is very rewarding to get a victory and when you lose there is a feeling of truly losing or losing something. Thus making the game very fun in my opinion.

[Hamm66]

I suppose it may come down to how much time you have to devote to a game and what you do with your non-gaming time.

 

I personally have a very busy and challenging career and personal life so I have little time to devote to hobbies and gaming. Thus, I prefer games where I can come and go without getting left behind.

 

Its not so much about difficulty as (I'm losing my thread cause the baby is biting my finger...do you see what I mean)

 

I'm going to drop this half cocked as she is getting figety

[tater]

It seems to me that aside from actual engagements, full PvP is a troublesome thing. I am familiar with the instancing in POTBS, but aside from large engagements where the ships typically ended up tangled together battering each other at some point, engagements can take hours, sometimes many hours. PvP makes chases virtually impossible unless people can dedicate themselves to many hours of boredom (I'd be able to do that at times to be sure). Like SH, time compression becomes a must for any game past the tactical level, and time compression and PvP do not get along well.

 

An idea I had for SH (I was an active modder of SH4) was that the game should be single player, with PvP within the single player game. My Fleet Boat is off the shallow coast of China, and an aircraft spots me, dropping a DC as I dive. The game would put out a call to any other SH players online and playing (note that they are NOT playing online, they are in their shoebox campaigns) and asks if they'd like to play a DD or  sub chaser. If they accept, they are put into a nearby IJN unit tasked to head to the last location of the enemy sub. They plot course, and any time compression I do they see happening in sync. If I detect them, or they detect me, time drops to 1:1. At that point, they prosecute me, and I do whatever I'm gonna do. To the player whose career it is, the game looks no different than any other single-player game---except that a percentage of the ships attacking him are not AI, but real people. After some resolution (sub no longer detected for more than X minutes), the "guest" player(s) are dismissed.

 

If no guest players are around, then the AI plays as usual (or if the player or guest is disconnected for whatever reason).

 

This allows a good single player experience (since it's really impossible to do naval stuff well without time compression) as well as PvP. Even one real person in a group of AI units changes everything about how the scenario would play out, too, and any players can be assumed to be in local command of all friendly units. Also, because you'll never know if any given ship is skippered by the AI or a real person, it will change everything about all your interactions, even if most are with AI. Pull some trick that "always works" vs AI on a real person, and you might very well find yourself asked to give your parole.

 

So you'd have Surprise sailing alone and encountering  a few sail of ships. At that point, the game can offer any players currently playing the option to pause their "real" game (their career) and take over any of the ships spotted by Surprise. The game knows if they are enemy or not, but the game might be allowed to let "guests" play other friendly ships as they will not know the ship closing on them is friend or foe. They might want the option to hoist various colors, etc. Might make for some fun chases that turn out to be Blue/Blue encounters.

 

This allows a realistic game for each player (where they can sail for months using time compression), and also allows each encounter to be PvP. The game can possibly have preferred nations for each player as well. I might say that I'll play any available PvP instance, but someone else might only want to play French, for example. It has loads of potential, and I have not seen any game use this technique.

[admin]

Regarding single player. 

 

We indicated that we would love to add single player and co-op to the game in the future. 

We are not doing it now for 2 reasons

 

1) we like fighting with real people - who will fight much better than any AI created. And initially it is actually easier to create repeatable content for Age of Sail enthusiasts - because every player fights differently.

2) we don't have resources right now for high quality single player content: stories, writing, art assets etc. Once we start making money the project will expand. 

[maturin]

When people are asking for SP, I think a lot are really asking for 'offline mode.'

 

They're not expected Skyrim at sea, just a dynamic world with lots of bots and econ and randomized encounters, but running off their computer instead of a server.

 

So I envision it as something that could be patched in the far future, rather than a whole new game mode.

[tater]

That would be my ideal as well. With 1:1 time plus compression like Silent Hunter. I'd love to see not coop, but the sort of "guest" play I suggested in another thread.

[BrutishVulgarian]

I like the Star Citizen model, you will be able to run the whole game on your own private server if you want to and mod it too.     Something to consider, if NA goes the crowd funding route........ and makes 40 million dollars.

[O'BrianFan]

When people are asking for SP, I think a lot are really asking for 'offline mode.'

 

They're not expected Skyrim at sea, just a dynamic world with lots of bots and econ and randomized encounters, but running off their computer instead of a server.

 

So I envision it as something that could be patched in the far future, rather than a whole new game mode.

 

I would agree with this. I don't think a complex campaign/adventure is required at all, just the option to run random encounters against AI controlled opponents, with maybe some economy/world exploration involved.

At the very least having a mode where you can sail solo and get used to the sailing mechanics (and even fighting vs simple AI) while not having to worry about having your stern blown away by players with months or years more experience than you will help to keep new players - especially as the game matures.

[tater]

I'd say that even a realistic campaign is only really possible in single player due to time constraints. Time compression is required for any naval simulation that deals with more than a single engagement (regardless of historical time period), and really extreme time compression is required some of the time (I can play a 6 week patrol in a submarine in an evening with limited game time). The trick is that we all (in different ships) need extreme time compression and 1:1 time, but at different times. Any solution for every player using one compression is less that ideal for all of them.

[Killick]

I think I am somewhat on the same page as Hamm66. I too would prefer a single player game campaign. This doesn't mean I like scripted quests - I actually hate those - but I would just want random encounters with AI in an open world.

 

Of course, in principle playing against a human could be much more challenging as AI is generally stupid. I fully appreciate that. But for someone who has at most 1 or 1.5 hours per day available to play, an MMO type game is just not ideal for two reasons:

 

1. When I finally have some time to play I don't want to have my ass kicked every single time by some clan member who has been training for weeks.

 

2. When I spot a sail at the horizon at a time that I actually want to go to sleep, I would like to have the opportunity to save the game and continue the next day. Having to abort or rush through the battle would totally destroy all sense of reality for me.

 

I hope the devs can take these kind of things in consideration somehow. Perhaps private servers as mentioned above could be a way out.

[Volkira]

Please Please the most important thing is getting the weather right.With that said I mean the wind,the gusts,pockets of wind lull,the wave height,swirling wind.All these effects are really important.

 

I have sailed on many racing yachts and seeing an opponent catch a gust and speed away or be in the wrong spot and stop dead has made a big difference to winning and losing.

 

The same sort of events happend all the time at sea and having a realistic weather system would just add to the immersion immensely.

 

Also there has to be gear failure at times such as a torn sail,canon balls falling off the brass monkeys in big seas and even a dismasting.

 

In regards to the single player game I too would much like this as having two young kids it's hard to dedicate long hours online with others.

 

Though some quick World of tanks length battles I could do.

[maturin]

Guys, the deathmatch version of the game is probably going to be available ages before we see a full-fledged MMO.

[clubby]

We indicated that we would love to add single player and co-op to the game in the future. 

We are not doing it now for 2 reasons

 

1) we like fighting with real people ...

2) we don't have resources right now ...

 

Those are good reasons, but I won't be buying a copy until the single-player thing happens.  People have alluded to the difference in play experience between a "game" and a "simulator."  I've been playing a lot of DCS World lately, setting up custom missions that allow me to practice certain maneuvers or focus on solving one problem the right way.  I haven't gone online yet, and I won't for a while, because I'd be eaten alive in my current non-expert condition.  If DCS World had no offline play, I'd skip it entirely, and I'd be missing out on an awful lot.  Because Naval Action won't have a single-player mode at first, I'll skip it at first, and I'll be missing out on an awful lot.

 

For "games," a quick tutorial usually does the trick.  Assassin's Creed tutorials are more like 4 hours, but you know what I mean.  For a "simulator," though, trial-and-error and study are usually required, and Naval Action sounds more like a simulator to me, what with being able to control individual sails and what not (auto-skipper can be switched on or off, right?), and I'm going to want to spend some alone time with it before I voyage off into dangerous waters.

 

I want a safe place to learn the systems.  I want to be able to pause it and read a few manual pages if I need to.  I want to be able to scrap the mission and immediately restart if I feel like it.  I want to be able to set up a quick scenario with weather conditions that I define.  I want to put a big ship-of-the-line in that scenario, then I want to put a little sloop in that scenario, and get a feel for the scale of each of them.

 

Your decisions make sense to me, they're just not the decisions I would have made.  If you can't give us a proper single-player experience right away, I understand.  But ... maybe you could throw folks like me a bone, and give us a little "quick scenario" sandbox where we can do some experiments?  The AI doesn't have to shine if it's just a little laboratory.  Hell, if it can just return fire when it has a shot, I'd be fine with just laying down some explicit waypoints for it and leaving it at that.  If you can do that, I'll probably pick up a copy on Early Access.  If not, well, I guess I'll just have to keep my ears open and wait for you to announce the Silent Hunter-esque SP campaign when it's ready.

[Mirones]

@clubby 

 

i would say its at the moment like this:

geting the general gameplay (ship physics&interface) done.

then we would start geting an proper AI ingame wich is not completly mentally handicaped or acts like it.

then if that is done we could start working on mission or recreating historical events and for that we need also:

more ship modells that would have fighted at there.

 

but i say you are completly wrong if you think that we will never get anykind of single player.

i personally dont care about single player anymore i want to play with people be it coop missions or in team vs team battles.

and you dont need to learn much about sailing itself this will happen over time exept if you want to hope right into a firstrate SoL and comand a fleet of 25 ships.

but i dont think you will be able to skip the small shooners and brigs

[maturin]

For "games," a quick tutorial usually does the trick.  Assassin's Creed tutorials are more like 4 hours, but you know what I mean.  For a "simulator," though, trial-and-error and study are usually required, and Naval Action sounds more like a simulator to me, what with being able to control individual sails and what not (auto-skipper can be switched on or off, right?), and I'm going to want to spend some alone time with it before I voyage off into dangerous waters.

You're very much mistaken about the accessibility of the gameplay here. Try asking people who are already in the focus testing.

[clubby]

@clubby 

but i say you are completly wrong if you think that we will never get anykind of single player.

 

No, I understand that a single-player experience is on the to-do list.  It's cool.

[clubby]

You're very much mistaken about the accessibility of the gameplay here. Try asking people who are already in the focus testing.

 

That's a good suggestion, and the word "Tester" appears under your name, so ... what's the accessibility like?  I had the impression a person would need a rough idea of how to actually sail, for example, but perhaps I'm very much mistaken?  Or perhaps I'm mistaken in my assumption that sailing is a non-trivial skill to learn?

 

Honestly, I'm a little confused, here.  I liked Sid Meier's Pirates, I liked the sailing bits in Assassin's Creed, and I want something with a little more depth.  Or, better yet, a lot more depth.  If it doesn't require a bit of study, I'm not sure it has that depth.  On the other hand, the game's Greenlight page says "Yard angles, ship angle to wind, cargo, fittings and ship condition affects speeds and turning rates. Correct tacking, boxhauling, clubhauling and other elements of the age of sail sailing are possible."  I don't know what half of that stuff means, but the idea of finding out while a wooden deck creaks and heaves beneath me seems pretty appealing, and I was hoping Naval Action might be the game to make that happen.  Am I setting up unrealistic expectations, here?

[admin]

Hello Clubby;

 

Based on the feedback we got from testers it became actually easier to sail with yards - ships feel a lot more natural and behave as they should be. 

It is not complex at all and adds a lot of depth where you will really see how your mastery goes up. 

[clubby]

Hello Clubby;

 

Based on the feedback we got from testers it became actually easier to sail with yards - ships feel a lot more natural and behave as they should be. 

It is not complex at all and adds a lot of depth where you will really see how your mastery goes up. 

 

Well, it certainly sounds interesting.  I'd be very interested to see it in action, so I'll be sure to keep an eye on NA as it progresses.  Thanks for the reply!

[maturin]

That's a good suggestion, and the word "Tester" appears under your name, so ... what's the accessibility like?

Control is WASD, plain and simple. You will learn quickly that some motorboat-like maneuvers don't work well, but there is no requirement to touch a brace or a sheet. Yard control is advanced mode, basically, and can be automated.

 

I had the impression a person would need a rough idea of how to actually sail, for example, but perhaps I'm very much mistaken?  Or perhaps I'm mistaken in my assumption that sailing is a non-trivial skill to learn?

 

I do know how to sail, so I'm not the best person to ask here. But to repeat something I once heard from an expert, "Sailing is fundamentally easy." Certainly, it's not a trivial skill in real life, but this game only has 4 pairs of buttons!

 

As for controlling sets of yards to affect maneuvers, it sounds harder than it is. If someone has stood a piece of paper up on a table, and you want to blow it over, what angle do you blow on it from? If you want to spin the paper around, do you blow on the center of the page or one end of it? When it comes to sails and wind, 80% of it can be explained in intuitive ways like that.

 

 

 

Correct tacking, boxhauling, clubhauling and other elements of the age of sail sailing are possible."  I don't know what half of that stuff means, but the idea of finding out while a wooden deck creaks and heaves beneath me seems pretty appealing, and I was hoping Naval Action might be the game to make that happen.

So far as boxhauling and clubhauling goes, I have hope but will believe it when I see it. And even then, I won't see it in battle very often.

 

Remember that a game is a fantastic place to learn, and the forums are best of all. My knowledge of square rigger handling has shot through the roof since I registered here.