Single Player and PvE Discussion, 2013 - 2015

[admin]

Hey Friend

 

It is in the very very long term plans. 

[adambomb]

I'll buy it either way , we need a good realistic NAVAL sailing war game. THANKS AGAIN FOR MAKING IT.

[adambomb]

Im ready for game.

[Euly]

So Naval Action is going to be something like a realistic version of Pirates Of The Burning Seas?

[admin]

So Naval Action is going to be something like a realistic version of Pirates Of The Burning Seas?

 

Not exactly. POTBS had certain flaws that could only be fixed by completely redesigning the game. But the there were elements in POTBS that we really liked. 

[Storm Hunter]

Not exactly. POTBS had certain flaws that could only be fixed by completely redesigning the game. But the there were elements in POTBS that we really liked. 

Elements like what? Do you like economy in that game?

[admin]

Elements like what? Do you like economy in that game?

 

We loved that game (i personally spent 3 years in it from beta till 2010). 

If I can name one problem in Potbs - it is overdesign. There were too much useless stuff in the game. Ships having no purpose in combat (Capri MC vs Oliphant), upgrades or items that were never used and many other things. 

Economy was very interesting in the beginning, but at the endgame it became a bit boring. 

[adambomb]

We do need a good economy to be able to make coins to buy ships, unless we are in the navy and they put us on as captains. Are we starting out in the navy or as a deck hand on a merchant ship.

[Verhoeven]

I hope it will be possible to have the option to set up multiplayer battles (where a host could set up the conditions, ship rating etc) without the economy and crafting stuff. Seen and done that in PotBS. Just battles that is what I would like. :-)

[FLGibsonJr]

What Verhoeven says is very important, most all of us that I know who are very interested in Age of Sail naval games have no interest at all in economy and crafting or whatever, we want to have control over setting up naval battles between squadrons (clans) that often are very historic in nature or very equal in nature thus testing the skills of an organized squadron.

Regards,

Gibson

[Barberouge]

We loved that game (i personally spent 3 years in it from beta till 2010). 

If I can name one problem in Potbs - it is overdesign. There were too much useless stuff in the game. Ships having no purpose in combat (Capri MC vs Oliphant), upgrades or items that were never used and many other things. 

Economy was very interesting in the beginning, but at the endgame it became a bit boring. 

True, once the production lines were setup, there wasn't much novelty, everyone just hauled their stuff out of the red zones - except when a port was taken, in which case the crafters had to buy more on the market or shift their production ports.

 

The biggest problem of PotBS was IMO the game inability to make the servers grow in population: the endgame was restricted to a few players maximum every day but the open sea needed a lot more, not to mention it was possible to attack a nation when it wasn't able to defend itself. The game failed attempt at mixing the PvE population and the PvP one also helped it dying.

[Verhoeven]

True, once the production lines were setup, there wasn't much novelty, everyone just hauled their stuff out of the red zones - except when a port was taken, in which case the crafters had to buy more on the market or shift their production ports.

 

The biggest problem of PotBS was IMO the game inability to make the servers grow in population: the endgame was restricted to a few players maximum every day but the open sea needed a lot more, not to mention it was possible to attack a nation when it wasn't able to defend itself. The game failed attempt at mixing the PvE population and the PvP one also helped it dying.

 

The AOSII community went into PotBS (beta) as one of the largest groups (they were divided over the nations and multiple guilds like Sint Maartens Zeevaarders Syndicaat and Les Chevaliers des Mers.) after a couple of months in the live game people eventually dropped out because grinding and economy just took too much time.

(Though I remember this: When my first daughter was born and after spending hours in hospital, I had to go home and leave my wife and child, and pick them up next morning. I came home and I could not sleep of happyness. So.. I went online in PotBS. My guild was online and I entered just in time to join a great battle. We sank all our opponents and all captains were cheering. Saying "this one is for your daughter!". Yep, I was pretty addicted, but life changes quickly with kids). And indeed after a while it became boring. Guilds and players found out how it worked best, and updates and challenges were not adding real change. I have no clue what happend the last 4 years though.

 

The first to drop out in the first year were the players who were in it for the naval battle aspects. They did not care about economy, fencing or tons of missions. They did it, only to be able to do naval combat and get the ships they wanted. With the naval combats full of magic and spells it was only a matter of time to see the hard core naval lovers leave. Port battles were cool at the beginning, but I started missing them as it just did not match with my daily life planning.

For newcommers (some did go back..) it is pretty hard to survive or to have a fun game without a guild and the tons of energy you have to put into things that have nothing to do with sailing or fighting. I mean (with work, a life and 2 kids at home), I rather log in play a battle or 2 for an hour and than log off. I, and many, don't have the time to grind everyday for hours and hours, only to get a better ship. And... you want to be able to come back after a couple of weeks/months and just do the battles you were used to. This is not WoW, but much more of a niche.

 

In PotBS the outcome of battles was most of the time based on he who had most time & friends, instead of skill (in terms of sailing and battle).

 

Though I would not have mind to get a better ship based on combat achievements. Than every battle would have been a challenge and the reward would directly been in the battle environment. Still even than you would be faced with people with 1st rates just because they spend 40 hours a week. An automatching system based on level would be cool (though you would have 'hackers'  and level grinders there too. But Company of Heroes 1 came close). In a multiplayer lobby where the host sets the conditions it is not relevant, unless you would get certain perks that others don't.

It would be also nice to see someones level so you know who you're up against.

 

A good example of very succesful (though still pretty arcadish) games with a mix of level grinding is World of Tanks and World of Warplanes. The battles are short. You can do many of them in an evening. Yes, its frustrating at the beginning, but you wont be fighting more than 3 levels above or below you (in Warplanes). And you rise relatively fast through the goodies of the many upgrades etc. A skilled lower level still has some chance agains the less skilled higher level. It not only has to do with skill, but also with the type of asset you get at certain levels. High level choose fast planes, low levels often have better turning planes... 

In naval battle the role of smaller vessels has its value. Like scouts, skirmishers or flankers, or to pick off crippled enemies. Facing two ships is always a danger, for any ship. Even the largest. 

 

Another aspect was that most players wanted to be Pirates or British. Other nations (especially France) suffered from a shortage of (online) players structurally. 

 

Let's not forget that many of these games are also designed as business models. Just to keep you subscribed, sell you dlc's or weapons/perks.

 

Don't get me wrong. I understand tha PotBS also gave people the dimension of character building and some sort of role play. If you are a pirate that would really part of the game. As most like the pirate way of life (where battle is only part of it). I don't hate an open world MMO.

If it was one without economy and trade, it would be cool. Maybe skip the economy and have the system give nations certain automated resources based on experience, territory, supply lines and ports. Instead of contributing to your guild, you would directly contribute to the nation. So all would benefit. 

I used to play Aces High and Warbirds long long time ago. A WW2 online simulator. There were 4 nations and the war would go on and on untill one nation won, followed a reset. A war would last for weeks. I was in a bomber squadron. At squad night we would pick a target (airfield) take our B17's (we often flew with 20 players in formation). Other nation members would try and capture the destroyed airfield. A mission would often last 1 hour. On the way we were often intercepted by enemies, but on squad knight we always made sure our brother fighter escort squad was there too. Great fun. No perks. No grinding, No player levels..

 

Luckily the devs of this game are concentrating on the naval fighting first, so it can stand alone. Later they will add the open world and other stuff.

 

This has become quite an essay... 

 

Anyway, yours faithfully, etc,

 

S!

 

Verhoeven

[admin]

Organized battles in equal conditions have been a priority. Without great and interesting ship to ship action any open world will be useless.

[Verhoeven]

Organized battles in equal conditions have been a priority. Without great and interesting ship to ship action any open world will be useless.

 

Yes, I totally agree. I am very happy to learn this.

 

But, would an open world be possible with an alternative for the economy? Or would it still need doing missions, crafting etc?

An alternative could be a system based on territory, ownership of ports, open supply lines, number of merchants, etc. Or you can select a ship based on level, xp and certiain other points, without the need for crafting it.

I know it's a bit premature as you are right now busy with the combat system. :-)

 

S!

Verhoeven

[admin]

Yes, I totally agree. I am very happy to learn this.

 

But, would an open world be possible with an alternative for the economy? Or would it still need doing missions, crafting etc?

An alternative could be a system based on territory, ownership of ports, open supply lines, number of merchants, etc. Or you can select a ship based on level, xp and certiain other points, without the need for crafting it.

I know it's a bit premature as you are right now busy with the combat system. :-)

 

S!

Verhoeven

 

We think yes it is possible. With faction warfare a-la world of tanks. This is all too early to discuss but it can look something like this:

 

Faction warfare is available to everyone at any time. There are no requirements there, no obligations, you join the battle and you fight. This part is for those who just wants sea combat and nothing else with minimal commitment. It helps your nation on the open world but mostly independent. But certain types of ships are available only through the faction warfare. And vice versa. certain types of ships are only available on the open map. Rare Caribbean teak planked corvette can only be built at certain ports. On the open world you can lose your ship. In the faction warfare you will just need to repair it because Navy will provide a replacement. something like that.. and of course this is not final and will probably look different in a game. We don't want to overpromise. What we know we can deliver already is beautiful ocean and great looking ships. Everything else needs lots of hard work.

[Marquiz]

 

 

Maybe skip the economy and have the system give nations certain automated resources based on experience, territory, supply lines and ports. Instead of contributing to your guild, you would directly contribute to the nation. So all would benefit. 

I think age of sail game, can mix togehter open world, trade and great naval battles in one game. Everyone can be plased.

 

 

 

On the open world you can lose your ship. In the faction warfare you will just need to repair it because Navy will provide a replacement. something like that.. and of course this is not final and will probably look different in a game. We don't want to overpromise. What we know we can deliver already is beautiful ocean and great looking ships. Everything else needs lots of hard work.

Right this is key diffrence between open world game (like eve online egz.) and World of Tanks. In Eve like game there is a lot more emoctions becouse u can lose/win something. If u win u take opponets stuff, if u lose he takes yours. In WoT ( i like this game and play it) u have only grind ,and battles. Its fun too but there in no deep there, no strategic planing. (its good game for 1h/day ,becouse more its going repetive and boring).

Still like these two gameplay together. Where can i sail into open world, into new adventure, not knowing when i fight and with who. If i can make profit from this fight this be a memorable day for me. 

Like in Eve online when i got first solo kill in low sec, even this was 2 years ago.

[Barberouge]

We think yes it is possible. With faction warfare a-la world of tanks. This is all too early to discuss but it can look something like this:

 

Faction warfare is available to everyone at any time. There are no requirements there, no obligations, you join the battle and you fight. This part is for those who just wants sea combat and nothing else with minimal commitment. It helps your nation on the open world but mostly independent. But certain types of ships are available only through the faction warfare. And vice versa. certain types of ships are only available on the open map. Rare Caribbean teak planked corvette can only be built at certain ports. On the open world you can lose your ship. In the faction warfare you will just need to repair it because Navy will provide a replacement. something like that.. and of course this is not final and will probably look different in a game. We don't want to overpromise. What we know we can deliver already is beautiful ocean and great looking ships. Everything else needs lots of hard work.

 

What you name "faction warfare" seems to me like "clan warfare", i.e. customisable battles fought one after one, with random players or full clan fleets. I don't think it should be linked to the open world (territorial conquest in the 2D map).

 

The open world (with territorial conquest, guild owned ports, goods production, ship crafting, trade) could gather the players who aren't interested in economy (free ships used for global conquest) and those who are: military mode and civil mode. A character could alternate the modes as he wishes. It would be supported by a contract system:

 

- the military contracts are generated by AI: the Navy captain is given a ship that is owned and armed by the state, and some funds (linked to the ship) to resupply it in allied ports during its campaign. The player himself doesn't gain or loose money. The use of the military contracts would be limited by cool-down timers (like in World of Warplanes).

 

- the civil contracts are generated by AI or players (guilds): the civil captain is given a ship that is owned and armed by AI or a guild. Those contracts could be about trading (bring the ship with its cargo from X to Y in Z duration) or privateering (hunt or protect convoys). The captain would gain money for himself, either with a salary or with share parts of the benefits (goods sells, takings and ransoms).

 

Once he would have earned a little capital with civil contracts, a player could become shipper and generate civil contracts (for himself or through a guild). The AI/players contracts would be tied to a tax system: the AI propose high tax contracts as the players can propose low tax contracts. The revenues would be decided by a simple %, for example 10% for the state, 30% for the captain, 10% for the crew, 50% for the shipper.

 

The civil player (or his guild) could become raw producer (buying fictive lands, producing raw materials), craftsman (buying factories and raw materials, producing all sorts of goods), ship builder (same as craftsman but producing ships), or shipper (arming ships and proposing civil contratcs). Guilds could specialyze into specifics economical activities or diversify. Captains could decide to arm their own ships and run campaigns for their full own benefits (except state taxes).

 

As players could alternate military and civil contracts, free Navy ships could be used for the guild interests. Players who would prefer military contracts, when their contracts cool down timers would be on, could choose to either have a try at some civil activities, or just quit the open world and join the clan warfare mode to train their combat skill.

 

 

 

A lot more could be discussed, especially the links between guilds, ports owning, taxes, ports development, factions wealth, diplomacy and conquest - but that's it for today

 

Do you think gathering the battle players and the economic players on the open world with such contract system could work ?

[TacticalWargames]

Maybe forget about MMO and just go for an online battle type game. One where you can have as many joining each side as you want and then either have points to spend on ships or you can choose historical set ups.

 

That way it's all about Naval Warfare. Could be played on LAN. If you get AI in you could give the AI any surplus ships if say you have only go ten mates together five each side and you choose a historical battle you give the AI the vacant ship (If you want, or just cu those ships out all together). Plus you could have Co Op against the AI aswell.

 

Doing it this way gets rid of the need for MMO like mechanics and economies etc etc. Also the game will last as long as people can link up where with an MMO if it isn't popular and the servers have to close the game is finished.

[Flip]

Maybe forget about MMO and just go for an online battle type game. One where you can have as many joining each side as you want and then either have points to spend on ships or you can choose historical set ups.

 

That way it's all about Naval Warfare. Could be played on LAN. If you get AI in you could give the AI any surplus ships if say you have only go ten mates together five each side and you choose a historical battle you give the AI the vacant ship (If you want, or just cu those ships out all together). Plus you could have Co Op against the AI aswell.

 

Doing it this way gets rid of the need for MMO like mechanics and economies etc etc. Also the game will last as long as people can link up where with an MMO if it isn't popular and the servers have to close the game is finished.

 

Please no, some sort of open world conquest system is a must, possibly with instanced "end" battles.

 

Joining instanced battles that cost you nothing to lose (ie WoT) is so boring.

[Digby]

Not for everybody. I've been playing Scourge of War online/MP for about 2 years and the game is still very popular. Its just an RTS battle game. It has tremendous longevity because it has great battle features.

 

The Sea Lords played Akella's Age of Sail II for about 4 years, using its simple MP battle interface to play several MP campaigns of our own design.

 

The stand-alone battle segment of this product is probably all I'm interested in. I don't play MMOs.

[admin]

Please no, some sort of open world conquest system is a must, possibly with instanced "end" battles.

 

Joining instanced battles that cost you nothing to lose (ie WoT) is so boring.

 

Well the game will be shaped by the players who will vote with their dollars (figuratively) and some people actually want just plain ship combat with no open world and bells and whistles. We will start providing detailed design descriptions on the open world for review after we finish with combat mechanics, test it and make it fun. 

[Adair]

Well the game will be shaped by the players who will vote with their dollars (figuratively) and some people actually want just plain ship combat with no open world and bells and whistles. We will start providing detailed design descriptions on the open world for review after we finish with combat mechanics, test it and make it fun. 

 

I agree very much with this philosophy. If the core mechanics of sailing and fighting aren't fun, then higher levels of gameplay will not be fun.

[CJFlint]

Not exactly. POTBS had certain flaws that could only be fixed by completely redesigning the game. But the there were elements in POTBS that we really liked. 

 

I agree 100 %. POTBS does have its fun points. But I always felt it was really flawed as well. 

 

To me I did not think ship vs ship combat was in all honesty was realistic. Some aspects were like wind and so forth, but this whole magic skill set formula took the realism right out of it. Also again real life age of sail war ships were 100% man and wind powered. So in order to portray this properly the crew needs to a big part of sailing the ship and ship combat. Morale, exp, type of crew and so forth. POTBS barely showed this element, which is huge. So there was a big gap missing in POTBS's protrayal of age of sail naval warfare. 

 

I have read allot of books about the age of sail non fiction. And I can tell you POTBS is a fantasy game with SOME realism, which has its place. The design was also highly flawed. I DO NOT think we should continue or be influenced by what FLS did with POTBS in Naval Action period. FLS totally drove POTBS into the ground and turned a once decent fun MMO game, into a train wreck of bad development choices. The new owners are struggling to pick up the pieces, its was hard to watch. It should be a lesson.

 

One thing I can say that caused this, was CHR classes, and CHR class balance. For years on the POTBS players would complain about CHR class balance, then the devs would cave and tweak things, then a new group of players would complain. Much of thier devs energy was spent adjusting balance instead of improving the game over all (adding content and so forth). It was a endless counter productive cycle I do not want to see a revisit of this sort thing.

 

As far as single player goes it dosn't matter. I think either your an MMO or not an MMO. Or it could be set up like Rise of Flight were you can play single player, but your always online being rated with others online regardless. One way or the other your in the community whether you prefer single player campaign or prefer multi player. Its a great formula that  has worked well for sometime. 

[Verhoeven]

Please no, some sort of open world conquest system is a must, possibly with instanced "end" battles.

 

Joining instanced battles that cost you nothing to lose (ie WoT) is so boring.

 

There are tons of players who go just for the battle.

Succesful RTS games like Company of Heroes, Total War (!!!!) or even Command & Conquer are just about the battle (and all have pretty good single player modes). Sure you can add all sorts of ranking and achievement systems to it. Most of its players just like to do a game. The winning or losing brings enough incentive. 

Actually you can't really compare MMO/character building with the typical RTS game. The WoT or even WoWarplanes games are (too) quick though. For me so quick that most of the incentive is grinding levels and planes/tanks. For me a match of 30 to 60 minutes is enough incentive to go for the win, and absolutely avoid losing. I still have memories of specific battles in AoSII from 12 years ago (!).

 

Last Sunday, I played another Line Battle in Mount & Blade Napoleonic Wars. 250 players (the root of the game is more than 5 years old). Winning is all about the honour, losing about the disgrace. The rest is just plain fun. I am sure that over 5 years people still play Mount & Blade. If you go online you see at least 10 games with 30+ people (at any time). The top one will mostly have 150+. All hosted by players or dedicated servers. Some open, some passworded. All with admins and different settings. Some modes are Team deathmatch, Battle (you have only 1 live), Siege or even Duel.

There are tons of mods, from Romans and Vikings to Brit vs Zulus, WW2, Zombies &  Star Wars.

The longlivity of this game lies in its simplicity, it's open community and its modding potential. And yes you can also do the single player open world. There are even multiplayer open worlds (with a bit of trading and crafting). With over 1500 hours in M & B I consider myself an excellent player. The last year I really specialized in arty (which is really hard to master). After a game (3 rounds of max 18 minutes) on a human vs bots server (mostly around 80 humans vs 160 bots commanded by 5 humans) I had a score of 506 kills vs 6 deaths of my own... I decided to stop. After months I started playing again last week. You never lose the skills. Newbies still get tricked by feint attacks, though my arty accuracy needed a bit of practise again. Still a bullit or a bajonet of a newbie is as deadly as by an expert. That never changes.

I have played the open world mods too. Great fun as it is all based on the same battle engine as in the stand alone multiplayer. I excel in those worlds based on experience and skill. Not perks, sure the weapon advantage can be a challenge, but an experienced player knows how to deal with it. The only downside is... time. After a while most of these mods decline as players have seen and done it, going back to the core of the game or going to other mods. Doing battles for 1 or 2 hours and log off.

 

S!

Verhoeven

[Flip]

Total War (!!!!) are just about the battle

 

Your kidding me right... 60 percent of Total War is strategy and empire management....