Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Pelgerean

Death, defeat and the end....

Recommended Posts

Afternoon all, played a few more games since my first post and had a few more observations to make.

 

I've seen a few threads discussing ships surrendering, perma-death, ship destructions etc and how this should be implemented. Personally i think that forcing ships to surrender rather than aiming to kill them should be a captains first priority, partly for "realism" but also because it then opens up other game play options such as selling booty etc.

 

With no fear of death in a game, it makes it impossible to psycologically make someone surredener and its much safer to sink a ship from a distance instead of boarding and risking losing. But gameplay benifits of surrendering in a hopeless fight could do the trick.

 

A simple way to do this would be to have a cooldown before you can command another ship... with a longer cooldown if your ship sinks in action than if you surrender. A way of thinking about it in real life terms could be that if you are taking prisoner, you could be exchanged and be employed again BUT if your ship is sunk, chances are you would die or end up in the hospital.... and you wouldn't be exchanged untill you've recovered, increasing the time untill you could get back in the action.

 

In realife, if a merchant ship was vastly outgunned by an opponent and to slow to escape, they would often surrender without a fight and i would encourage this with the incentive that yes you have lost your ship but you can quickly get another and move on, but if you fight it out you will likely still lose but it will take alot longer.

 

I think it could also have interesting implications with regards to insurance. I have not seen this feature discussed anywhere but this is definately a realistic feature which could be brought in if you lose a ship (the more expensive the bigger the cost with warships being more expensive to make it more efficient for merchant ships)

 

Should you fight to the death, the insurance might have to pay compensation for the dead crew, so the captains payout would be less, another benifit for surrendering rather than fighting to the death.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and one thing i forgot to mention could be the use of insurance to effect wider gameplay.

 

In the War of 1812, one of the many reasons the Americans decided to discontinue the war was to do with insurance rates (not something people really consider when they look at the "glamourous" parts of war but it's true). After there initial sucess against British shiping, larger numbers and blockade started to have a dramatic effect on the American ecconomy and insurance rates rose dramatically untill it was no longer viable for merchant ships and privateers to try and run the blockade.... not impossible, just expensive and risky as so many where being captured.

 

To the contrary, British rates stayed consistently low during the entire conflict, mainly because after the early frigate actions, the naval war swung in favour of the British and it was deemed no more risky to travel to and around America than it was to operate anywhere else because of the risk French privateers etc.

 

So if you wanted to prevent people flooding one specific area, insurance rates could be raised to go to that area for one side or the other to force gameplay elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal opinion:

-no perma-death for players (captains), but there could potentially be dynamic loss of progress in the form of demotion.

-loss of ships, but insured for private ships, compensated for naval ships by assignment to new commands (if loss is honorable). Private ships would have greater loss compensated for by greater financial rewards. Cargo would always be forfeit except in a situation where the captor might decide to not take possession of a prize (forcing him to give up some of his crew) and instead just remove valuable cargo and release ship. Although not entirely historical, surrendering captains (players) might keep their personal portable wealth and possessions aboard the ship (wealth owned by the player, equipment, prestige items).

-perma-death for crew and officers, with some of the player's progress (experience) vested in his crew. (Principle motivation for surrender over fight to the death.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you surrender you keep the crew and any experience they might have.... that's a good idea, depending on how important the experience of crew is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surrender = loss of ship requiring insurance (hahaha you forgot insurance).

Fighting loses you crew and ship.

Running loses you nothing.

 

Sounds good akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal opinion:

-no perma-death for players (captains), but there could potentially be dynamic loss of progress in the form of demotion.

-loss of ships, but insured for private ships, compensated for naval ships by assignment to new commands (if loss is honorable). Private ships would have greater loss compensated for by greater financial rewards. Cargo would always be forfeit except in a situation where the captor might decide to not take possession of a prize (forcing him to give up some of his crew) and instead just remove valuable cargo and release ship. Although not entirely historical, surrendering captains (players) might keep their personal portable wealth and possessions aboard the ship (wealth owned by the player, equipment, prestige items).

-perma-death for crew and officers, with some of the player's progress (experience) vested in his crew. (Principle motivation for surrender over fight to the death.)

 

Just remember that Captains were encouraged to fight back then.  Losing your ship against insurmountable odds, after making every effort to escape was perfectly acceptable, but refusing to take your ship into action if there was a chance of succeeding was frowned upon more than losing your ship.  You weren't usually censured or demoted for losing a battle, so long as you made every effort to win it.  As such, demotion for losing your ship isn't a normal course of events, and nor should it be implemented here.  Demotion for refusing Admiralty Orders, or failing to succeed in your assigned mission too often (not just once, but more than once in a certain period of time), yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ransom off captured Captains. Many naval officers were imprisoned then ransomed or exchanged for enemy counterparts. 

 

Just how that would work is the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being held and unable to sail isn't an acceptable gameplay solution.  I could see the need to ransom back your Officers (which wouldn't prevent you from sailing something else until you could raise the funds), but holding the player character hostage isn't a great idea in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance killed potbs lols you could incure it at an office lose the ship you get monry back but pay higher price i would say. You need to build buy a new ship back this should challange people to keep another ship in reserve. Insurance sorry but i have to say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of having a cooldown that is different depending on if you surrender or sink. I don't however like the idea of losing my ship. If i worked very hard to gain say a ship of the line and then lose it I would be very, very upset. I do agree with the loss of cargo if you are captured. It would also offer a chance for more fighting because if its very valuable cargo you really do not want to lose then you would fight it out or if you cant you run away.

 

Losing crew may also be a way to go about it instead of losing ships. With the ransom thing maybe your officers get taken (not your player character) and then you pay a set fee depending on rank to get them back with a small diminish in xp. I hate the idea of being demoted for losing a battle though. It would honestly make a lot of people rage quit the game if they'd worked hard and then got demoted for trying their best. I don't think you should even be demoted for failing missions either. Its just not a good game mechanic. 

 

I also don't like insurance. I hated it in EVE online because when i just started out and lost my ship I couldn't afford the same one because i didn't have enough money to afford full insurance. It would deter a lot of potential new players I can assure you this. Again going back to the cooldowns maybe you lose a ship and have to wait 30 minutes so you go out with a different ship. I'd much rather do this than have to continually make sure I have enough money in case my ship is captured or sunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lose the ship yours lets say you get shipwrecked. Ship captured pay their navy ransom not that person he only gets an % of the ship prize Ransom. If you lose the ship you have to defend yourself in an council punishmend us demoting bla bks bla.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance killed potbs lols you could incure it at an office lose the ship you get monry back but pay higher price i would say. You need to build buy a new ship back this should challange people to keep another ship in reserve. Insurance sorry but i have to say no.

 

How does an officer in the Navy, who was assigned their ship by the Admiralty, keep one in reserve?  They didn't, if they successfully defended their actions in losing the ship, they were assigned another (if available - in game one will likely always be available).  There may be a cost to reputation depending on how it was lost, but another was waiting already.  Further, Admin has already stated truthfully that Navy Captains were encouraged to fight.  Losing a ship doesn't mean demotion, unless the loss was due to negligence or failure to perform your duty.  It may even mean promotion if, in losing your ship, you caused the enemy the loss of theirs for a period of time due to repairs (example, you're in a light frigate, and bring a heavy frigate into action.  In the course of the battle, you're sunk or taken, but you cause enough damage that the enemy ship needs to put in for a long repair or later sinks or is scuttled due to damage - you just traded a light frigate to take a heavy out of action for an extended period of time - a net gain).  The Captain didn't pay the ransom, the Nation did.  They paid and or traded the enemy's captured officers to get theirs back.

 

In real life, merchants and privateers were able to insure their ships and cargoes.  That rate might get a lot higher if they were sailing somewhere dangerous, or with an extremely expensive load, but ship insurance is a very real aspect of the Age of Sail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life, merchants and privateers were able to insure their ships and cargoes.  That rate might get a lot higher if they were sailing somewhere dangerous, or with an extremely expensive load, but ship insurance is a very real aspect of the Age of Sail.

 

Yes but at the end of the day this is a video game and it needs to be fun. I feel that insurance will be more of a hassle to most than it is worth. Maybe you can put insurance on cargo you're carrying but I don't think it should be put on ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I don't understand - how is it a hassle?

 

Well I'm speaking as someone who did not play POTBS but i did play EVE Online. Insurance was a thing for the space ships in that game as well. For players who were already deeply invested in the game insurance wasn't really a problem because they built up a large sum of money and actually a lot of the time the games "corporations" or guilds/clans would pay for your lost ship if you lost it while fighting for them. BUT for newer players who have a very low income it was a great hassle. Most of the time you could buy just the basic insurance which covered MAYBE half of the cost of your ship. So you get half back which is nice but you still need the other half which then means you need to make that money back somehow. So you resort to boring delivery missions and asteroid mining which really turns you off to the game. Then once you have enough money for the ship; uh-oh you don't have enough money for insurance. The main reason I quit EVE was because I kept getting killed and having to grind to get enough money to get another ship and then not having good enough insurance to cover the losses and it was just super boring.

 

Now I'm not sure how acquiring money will work in this game but I bet the best ways will be pretty boring like trading, cargo missions, etc. If you like that type of stuff great but for a lot of new players and even experienced players it will be monotonous and will quickly become something they hate doing. Now, if you can join a navy and have them reimburse your ships and pay you for fighting for them that would be fine, or once you get a good enough ship and go around pirating that'd be fun, but a lot of new players will be turned off by the insurance thing. They simply wont have the funds to keep getting their ships and no one likes to back-track.

 

Again i'm just speaking from my experience from EVE online. I'm not exactly sure how it would play out in Naval Action but I'm still firmly against insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm speaking as someone who did not play POTBS but i did play EVE Online. Insurance was a thing for the space ships in that game as well. For players who were already deeply invested in the game insurance wasn't really a problem because they built up a large sum of money and actually a lot of the time the games "corporations" or guilds/clans would pay for your lost ship if you lost it while fighting for them. BUT for newer players who have a very low income it was a great hassle. Most of the time you could buy just the basic insurance which covered MAYBE half of the cost of your ship. So you get half back which is nice but you still need the other half which then means you need to make that money back somehow. So you resort to boring delivery missions and asteroid mining which really turns you off to the game. Then once you have enough money for the ship; uh-oh you don't have enough money for insurance. The main reason I quit EVE was because I kept getting killed and having to grind to get enough money to get another ship and then not having good enough insurance to cover the losses and it was just super boring.

 

Now I'm not sure how acquiring money will work in this game but I bet the best ways will be pretty boring like trading, cargo missions, etc. If you like that type of stuff great but for a lot of new players and even experienced players it will be monotonous and will quickly become something they hate doing. Now, if you can join a navy and have them reimburse your ships and pay you for fighting for them that would be fine, or once you get a good enough ship and go around pirating that'd be fun, but a lot of new players will be turned off by the insurance thing. They simply wont have the funds to keep getting their ships and no one likes to back-track.

 

Again i'm just speaking from my experience from EVE online. I'm not exactly sure how it would play out in Naval Action but I'm still firmly against insurance.

 

I also played Eve for many, many years (three characters with over 20mil SP), and usually just saved up the extra amount for insurance.  But I definitely see where you are coming from there.

 

In the end, Admin has stated that they don't want a large amount of time loss associated with losing a ship.  We don't yet know what that means, so far the main application as given by Admin is that you don't have to spend  time running to and fro for the ship, fittings for the ship, crew for the ship, etc. like you did with PotBS or Eve.  You can leave something like Insurance out, but in exchange you need to make sure that, for Captains who must purchase their ships, they aren't prohibitively expensive to replace.  Yes, earning the extra ISK to insure a battleship in Eve was a pain, but not insuring it and losing it was catastrophic if you didn't have a good income source or a "deep" ISK reserve (mine was around 1.5bil in liquid ISK when I stopped playing, much of that from HighSec mining).  Of course, the argument could also be made that either way, you're grinding "money" to replace it, and so an insurance policy just acts as an "inflationary" increase on the battleship's cost.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very curious about what you guys plan to do with the loss on death in the  open world. Will our ships be totally destroyed when they sink or will they just decay somehow, maybe with a set amount of lives such as in "Pirates of the burning sea"? In Entropy (a space sim) they made it so that a ship will be more and more expensive to repair each death so people replace it when it's too expensive to be worth repairing.

 

Also, what will the ones sinking you be able to loot? Guns and ammo if you win by boarding and only cargo that floats if you sink them? Maybe some cargo will have a chance of being destroyed if lots of damage were directed on where the enemy has his cargo space.

 

Personally I love the hardcore version of these things where a ship has only one life and whatever this ship had on it, that has any type of use and is not destroyed or sank should be lootable (EVE Online type of death).

 

The loss of ships and items on death is the only possible money sink that I can see in this and many other games. To avoid inflation we must make this aspect of the game in to something that significantly changes the entire games economy. It'll make resources be in demand. Pve, trading and crafting will be more worth doing and also required. People will be forced to do all these things if what you get from it is needed. If we never lost our ships and/or modules, in a few months everybody will have one of every ship in the game and so all people will sail in huge armadas of high end ships without any fear of death. The markets would be overflowing with modules that nobody wants to buy. I think ships definitely have to be destroyed along with its modules/items for this kind of world to go around.

 

I do like the idea of surrendering by negotiating, for example, to give the attacker some of your cannons and ammo that would otherwise sink if he got destroyed. Maybe crew could be negotiable as well or if the cargo is of something heavy like metal or stone (items that can sink).

 

Then after a negotiation we'd have to make this player immune from the other players attack to not allow betrayal after a deal was made. This of course opens up the possibility of exploits by for example having a friend attack you, negotiating one useless item and then being invincible for xx minutes so we have to figure out a variant of this.

 

To avoid these kinds of exploits we could allow attacker to kill the player after a deal was made every time but then add some kind of reputation to this player showing that he rarely sticks to the deals he's been making and so you might decide to not give him anything and sink instead along with your goods.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...