Modify the names over the ships ?

[tarkin1980]

I like the closer you are the more info..........Voted

 

The only reasonable idea so far in this thread. Everything else has just been the old "realism" nonsense and pretty much all of it would deduct from, not increase, the fun factor for me. You also have to consider that if this game is going to be commercially viable, it has to be reasonably easy to play. The idea of making the UI of a computer game "realistic" is fundamentally flawed right from the beginning. It is there to make the game easier to operate so that you can concentrate on the decision making, which is the core of gaming in all it's forms. Let realism influence the range of choices a player has to make, and their effects. Not the UI.

[Magnum]

The only reasonable idea so far in this thread. Everything else has just been the old "realism" nonsense and pretty much all of it would deduct from, not increase, the fun factor for me. You also have to consider that if this game is going to be commercially viable, it has to be reasonably easy to play. The idea of making the UI of a computer game "realistic" is fundamentally flawed right from the beginning. It is there to make the game easier to operate so that you can concentrate on the decision making, which is the core of gaming in all it's forms.

snip ....

 

First you rail against toooooooo much "realism"

 

Let realism influence the range of choices a player has to make, and their effects. Not the UI.

 

Then you want realism in charge ......

 

WTF? or as Yota would say FTW?

[SueMyChin]

The only reasonable idea so far in this thread. Everything else has just been the old "realism" nonsense and pretty much all of it would deduct from, not increase, the fun factor for me. You also have to consider that if this game is going to be commercially viable, it has to be reasonably easy to play.

 

You're correct. This is where the compromise comes into it. It's a balance between difficulty and fun. How would you argue removal of names to be replaced with an 'enemy indicator' makes the core gameplay harder though?

 

The idea of making the UI of a computer game "realistic" is fundamentally flawed right from the beginning. It is there to make the game easier to operate so that you can concentrate on the decision making, which is the core of gaming in all it's forms.

We aren't talking about the 'realism' of the user interface here, it's the information that you're given within the UI.

 

Let realism influence the range of choices a player has to make, and their effects. Not the UI.

Exactly! Knowing or not knowing who you're attacking is not the UI, it's fundamental to gameplay and thus part of the 'realism'. Deciding when and how your enemy is revealed to you will effect the range of choices you have to make, not hinder them.

I am all for the 'closer you are, more info you have' model too, I'm just clarifying what it is we're actually debating here. haha

[Galileus]

Again, no one is suggesting that the enemy not be KNOWN - you are arguing against a phantom.

 

The suggestion is simply to either lose the big RED PENNANT with their name on it or replace it with a more unobtrusive marker - it's what "Blood" would want also.

 

I didn't read the WHOLE topic, sure, but I read enough. Quite a few people suggested recognizing ships by their paint, class and flags. This is NOT an un-obtrusive replacement for a name-tag.

 

If I have missed something, sorry, my bad. I have nothing against less obtrusive name-tags, Im all for it - these we have now are rather hideous. But then again, it IS an alpha. If it is about having more info the closer you're in (at long range - zoom in to see name, closer - name given, zoom in for flags etc), Im all for it. This is how almost any sailing game I played worked, and I love it. Why I am... actively... defending my PoV though is because of suggestions I read at the beginning of the topic - pretty much banning social interactions with enemies in an MMO. If there was a consensus on that somewhere I've missed, again - my bad. This is quite a topic to read

[Galileus]

You're correct. This is where the compromise comes into it. It's a balance between difficulty and fun. How would you argue removal of names to be replaced with an 'enemy indicator' makes the core gameplay harder though?

 

Why not go the other way around? Remove friend / foe markers, keep ship name tags / player name tags in scope. That way you actually need to keep track of who is who, look at their flags and remember their ships, while still being able to call them by name.

[SueMyChin]

I didn't read the WHOLE topic, sure, but I read enough. Quite a few people suggested recognizing ships by their paint, class and flags. This is NOT an un-obtrusive replacement for a name-tag.

 

If I have missed something, sorry, my bad. I have nothing against less obtrusive name-tags, Im all for it - these we have now are rather hideous. But then again, it IS an alpha. If it is about having more info the closer you're in (at long range - zoom in to see name, closer - name given, zoom in for flags etc), Im all for it. This is how almost any sailing game I played worked, and I love it. Why I am... actively... defending my PoV though is because of suggestions I read at the beginning of the topic - pretty much banning social interactions with enemies in an MMO. If there was a consensus on that somewhere I've missed, again - my bad. This is quite a topic to read

 

You did respond specifically to me however and I never once argued for "recognizing ships by their paint, class and flags" or "banning social interactions"..

Anyway, I completely take your point about staying social and fun, I just don't think altering the name tags would remove anything from that. It's cool to disagree though, otherwise I'd have nobody to waste my time responding to.

[SueMyChin]

Why not go the other way around? Remove friend / foe markers, keep ship name tags / player name tags in scope. That way you actually need to keep track of who is who, look at their flags and remember their ships, while still being able to call them by name.

 

That isn't what I'm ultimately concerned with (it's probably my fault for not making myself clear enough) this is why I haven't stopped responding to the thread.

I'm straight against being able to know the name of the enemy (up to a certain range) at all, regardless of how they decide to display it (above the ship, below the ship, only in the glass etc... ).

I feel that uncertainty about who the potential friend/foe is and what his intentions maybe be will ramp up the tension. I completely accept that at some point (at hailing range - I know, I sound like a broken record...)  you're going to need to know who you're trading with, swapping info with or fighting. I just think it would add something to gameplay and  take little from it ..

[Crankey]

From the number of posts it is quite clear that there is a huge range of different views here, so the devs will NEVER be able to please everyone. So I propose the following....... (drumroll please)

 

At some stage the Devs put the work in to give each player the option they want to see on their own personal screen.

 

A, Name tags as is, with the option to turn them on and off during play

B, Damage indicator squares shows a name when you view a ship regardless of range, but only populates damage info when close

C, As B but can also display ship class (I know atm classes are normally easy to differentiate but later in game we may have more similar class ships)

D, As A but instead of nametag, tag is a suitable coloured icon of some description.

 

So you get the idea. The above aren't what I think the Devs should offer, merely some varying options offered up by the posts above. I am sure that each have merit and that an option to select some of the most popular will please everyone.

[Edward Vernon]

I voted no....but I also like the idea of being able to see the names of friendlies. Until we get customisable pendants (PENDANT Though spelt PENDANT in the Royal Navy, this word is always pronounced PENNANT) we must be able to specifically identify friendly vessels IMO. This is essential for any attempt at controlling a fleet or squadron. HOWEVER, the last word I recall on the subject of Pendants from the Devs was that these will NOT be customisable but will be awarded from a standard set according to rank/achievement. I also believe that customisable vessels will be a looong way off.

 

So.. in short.....no enemy names but friendlies yes.

[tarkin1980]

As far as I understand, what people want to do is not to remove any of the information available to the player. Just to make it harder to access. (ie replacing the nametag with a flag or similar) This is what I'm against. If the info is going to be there, good design is to make it easy to access. Removing it altogether, while still a bad idea, would make more rational sense than hiding it away.

 

I come from World of Tanks. A game where 90% of the game is hidden from the player to such an extent that it is pretty much impossible to become even an average player without spending countless hours studying third party websites and forums. This is bad game design and leads to endless frustration for good and bad players alike. I do not want another game where my allies and opponents, due to being clueless as to how the game works, run around like headless chickens and perform worse than bots. While this particular change might not lead to that, it is a step in the wrong direction and will easily become a slippery slope.

 

A game should be easy to play but hard to perform in. That is good game design.

[Mundane]

From the number of posts it is quite clear that there is a huge range of different views here, so the devs will NEVER be able to please everyone. So I propose the following....... (drumroll please)

 

At some stage the Devs put the work in to give each player the option they want to see on their own personal screen.

 

A, Name tags as is, with the option to turn them on and off during play

B, Damage indicator squares shows a name when you view a ship regardless of range, but only populates damage info when close

C, As B but can also display ship class (I know atm classes are normally easy to differentiate but later in game we may have more similar class ships)

D, As A but instead of nametag, tag is a suitable coloured icon of some description.

 

So you get the idea. The above aren't what I think the Devs should offer, merely some varying options offered up by the posts above. I am sure that each have merit and that an option to select some of the most popular will please everyone.

But the problem with this is that some people will have an unfair advantage over others. While some ships refuse to see names or team colours over any of the ships on their screen, maybe someone on the enemy side will have all names and colours enabled, allowing them to have much more tactical information compared to their self-impaired comrades.

Either everyone gets their names removed, or they all stay for everyone. There's no personal choice here.

[SueMyChin]

But the problem with this is that some people will have an unfair advantage over others. While some ships refuse to see names or team colours over any of the ships on their screen, maybe someone on the enemy side will have all names and colours enabled, allowing them to have much more tactical information compared to their self-impaired comrades.

Either everyone gets their names removed, or they all stay for everyone. There's no personal choice here.

 

Yep, it has to be everyone as far as information availability is concerned. How it's displayed could be changed to preference but it has to be there for none or for all. Unless you're talking about friendly ships. That should be optional to show either their name, a friendly icon or nothing. The option to show friendly names if desired does need to be there though.

[SueMyChin]

As far as I understand, what people want to do is not to remove any of the information available to the player. Just to make it harder to access. (ie replacing the nametag with a flag or similar) This is what I'm against. If the info is going to be there, good design is to make it easy to access. Removing it altogether, while still a bad idea, would make more rational sense than hiding it away.

 

I might be wrong but think for the most part, we do want to remove the information available, granted some seem not to have grasped this (it's not been well explained really).

 

I come from World of Tanks. A game where 90% of the game is hidden from the player to such an extent that it is pretty much impossible to become even an average player without spending countless hours studying third party websites and forums. This is bad game design and leads to endless frustration for good and bad players alike. I do not want another game where my allies and opponents, due to being clueless as to how the game works, run around like headless chickens and perform worse than bots. While this particular change might not lead to that, it is a step in the wrong direction and will easily become a slippery slope.

Just because WoT is poorly designed doesn't mean that NA will be too.

As for the old slippery slope nonsense - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

[Destraex]

In mech you hold down Q to bring names up. 

All other times names only came up if you were directly looking at the mech.

Problem was the mechs behind could still show names through.

[Johny Reb]

I disagree with the vast majority in this thread for the following reasons,

 

1. French vs British, vs dutch were very specific in their design and Captain's of that era could have a good idea on the nationality of the ship before they saw the flag. It wasn't a perfect system as ships were captured from other nations and put into service but it was generally an accurate way to tell friend from foe. But in the game ships of all nations will be used in every nation most likely and therefore the recognition of the class or type of ship will have no meaning

 

2. Captain's of the day had a rudimentary knowledge at least of the enemies fleet and at times the knowledge of the Captain commanding one ship or another. Its not unreasonable to have names above a ship as this is a type of "intel" that you as Captain would know.

 

3. There were cannon signals that were used to identify friend from foe at distance. This is nearly impossible in a game because it is nearly impossible to coordinate signals across the entire nation and it is almost impossible to keep it a secret. Changing the signal after it has been discovered would confuse the whole issue and the signal would simply not be useful anymore.

 

4. In real life, Captains with reputations of being successful were often pursued with more vigor. Be they pirates or Confederate Raiders they were seen as a greater threat and therefore made a specific target. Those in this game that are more successful than others are no different and shouldn't be immune from this historical reality. Also, Captains in that era generally kept with their single ship for long periods of time allowing the word to get around that, "Captain Awesome sails the frigate Doodle Dandy". But in game, a player may be able to transfer between ships every time they hit port. Therefore, there will be no consistency in gathering intelligence about Captains you may face and the ships they sail so the only way to get around this is artificial intelligence, i.e. names above the boats.

 

5. Ultimately, the best target is usually not the other teams best guy. Leviathan and others at the top of the leader boards are nothing when faced with a 6 fleet of equal ships. In a fight between fleets the most important thing is to get guns out of the fight and therefore targets are made out of the ships that are found in the most vulnerable positions and not based off of their name unless there is no one "out of place" to pick on. Then maybe the well known player will be targeted. If you focus on the best player over the most vulnerable player than you are likely to loose.

 

6. Ultimately, known groups will become familiar. You will see the same set of guys running around together and therefore, the names above their heads are unimportant. Most likely in these practiced groups, all the players will be a threat, not just one of them.

 

7. The last reason revolves around game play. How fun is it to not know who you are fighting? Relationships in game develop not just with those of your own nation but also with those you fight and learn to respect on the open ocean. By removing names then your opponents become anonymous which in my opinion is boring.

[Parag]

I know Leviathan is an instant target and for people who have instant name recognition it is frustrating to be the target and there isn't much you can do.

 

You are my Mr instant target Prater 

[ThePfeil]

6. Ultimately, known groups will become familiar. You will see the same set of guys running around together and therefore, the names above their heads are unimportant. Most likely in these practiced groups, all the players will be a threat, not just one of them.

 

7. The last reason revolves around game play. How fun is it to not know who you are fighting? Relationships in game develop not just with those of your own nation but also with those you fight and learn to respect on the open ocean. By removing names then your opponents become anonymous which in my opinion is boring.

How much fun would it be for those "notorious" captains to be recognized instantly and being avoided like the plague, though?

[Crankey]

But the problem with this is that some people will have an unfair advantage over others. While some ships refuse to see names or team colours over any of the ships on their screen, maybe someone on the enemy side will have all names and colours enabled, allowing them to have much more tactical information compared to their self-impaired comrades.

Either everyone gets their names removed, or they all stay for everyone. There's no personal choice here.

 

Yes this is a game there needs to be personal choice. If you wish to give up something that could be a game aid for aesthetic or altruistic reasons you are making a choice that you are comfortable playing the game this way, you are making a statement "I am good enough I don't need those extra frills" no-one is forcing the player to give up this choice., it is an option he or she chooses not to utilise.

 

I am not suggesting going as far as games like world of tanks, where you turn on damage markers, use gold ammo, 3rd party hit box skins.

 

Also remember that if you are in Alpha test it is reasonable to assume that you are particularly interested in this game, a standard player who will join the game at release for instance may have no or little knowledge of the game and will need those aids, at least during their first outings to make sense of it all.

[AlphaCentauri]

I'm totally for what Reb stated here, first of all, no matter how hardcore you guys might want this game to be, remember this is a game. Single player simulation programs allow people to customize how they want to play, but NA is ultimately going to be a MMO(possibly with RPG content loaded), if that's the case, devs should also put playability into consideration.

 

For example, it's sometime hard to type msg in the hype of close range battles, if you want to focus fire, typing the enemy's name is easier than giving out an approx target location and searching them through your scopes. The game itself already has the out-of-sight mech, you won't be able to know the names of friendlies or foes unless you're near enough, identifying ships is the job for lookouts, while admirals and captains receive information and give orders. The warship within itself is a big family, cooperation between crews and captain is no doubt a normal practice.

Imo this game already has its learning curve, removing too much information simply for realism may add more burden to newcomers and less skilled players. 

 

Peace

-Alpha-

[Mr. Doran]

I'm totally for what Reb stated here, first of all, no matter how hardcore you guys might want this game to be, remember this is a game. Single player simulation programs allow people to customize how they want to play, but NA is ultimately going to be a MMO(possibly with RPG content loaded), if that's the case, devs should also put playability into consideration.

 

For example, it's sometime hard to type msg in the hype of close range battles, if you want to focus fire, typing the enemy's name is easier than giving out an approx target location and searching them through your scopes. The game itself already has the out-of-sight mech, you won't be able to know the names of friendlies or foes unless you're near enough, identifying ships is the job for lookouts, while admirals and captains receive information and give orders. The warship within itself is a big family, cooperation between crews and captain is no doubt a normal practice.

Imo this game already has its learning curve, removing too much information simply for realism may add more burden to newcomers and less skilled players. 

 

Peace

-Alpha-

 

Listen to this guy you radicals

[Johny Reb]

How much fun would it be for those "notorious" captains to be recognized instantly and being avoided like the plague, though?

Well, I don't think this scenario would happen if we are to look at the current model of the game. Names only become visible at relatively close range and for the open world there will be a recognition skill that will probably eliminate most from seeing anything other that ship statistics.

[PIerrick de Badas]

remove it pz, not historical, no simulation, less immersion

[Blackjack Morgan]

I just find it slightly amusing so many ideas and opinions thrown around on various threads as if what we are playing is what this game will be when finished. We are currently "testing" in an extremely limited arena team death match people. While I appreciate everyones gusto on what they think needs to be changed or instituted lets remember that we are not even remotely close to experiencing what Naval Action will be when finished. If you feel like your notoriety is getting you focused too much to play take a break....you are not going to be missing much!

[Reki]

nickname is the only fast identificator of target in large fight. How you imagine admiral order to focus? Who? That constitution? 7-th constitution from left to right? How about rush or cases, when ships is splitted to few groups. "No, not that Trinc, sailor!" Very funny... I can only facepalm tripple times, while looking how many of you vote for 2 option. Sad

[tarkin1980]

I might be wrong but think for the most part, we do want to remove the information available, granted some seem not to have grasped this (it's not been well explained really).

 

Just because WoT is poorly designed doesn't mean that NA will be too.

As for the old slippery slope nonsense - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

 

Of course it doesn't have to. That's what I'm trying to prevent here.

 

I think it is a fair assumption that if you take one step in one direction, the next step in the same direction will be easier to take. Note that I never claimed that A with 100% certainty would lead to B, just that there is a risk. That's just how the human mind works. There is no logical fallacy there. The clumsy attempt at being clever displayed at that website doesn't even pertain to what I said.

 

Use that link when you debate with republican fanatics on facebook. Not here.