When does a game in development lose its way?

[SYN_Bloody-Bandy]

Thank you for your reply.

[Hethwill]

Well, I dunno, Ultimate General is pretty accurate. Of course it's much smaller in scope, too.

 

I really like the way Ultimate General was designed. No mistake there I really enjoy the fun and obviously invested my hard earned cash on it, but it is far from a battlefield commander simulation.

 

If we would label things, UG and TW games would be arcade, where SoW, Histwar and Command Ops would be the hardcore simulator.

 

They are absolute niche games and require a strong dedication but never ever get old. They sacrifice the visuals for the complexity. They compromise the the access of a casual player by delivering the biggest possible realism.

 

It is their design decisions as I am sure Naval Action has theirs.

 

What is important is that the developers have a strong commitment to their own views of how the game must be played. If they try to adjust the design to gain everyone's affection they will lose the "thing" that makes a special game...special.

 

I am confident.

[Sophist]

The WT/WoT model is EXACTLY what most of us in this community (at least myself for sure) are running from.  I would dump this game in a heartbeat if it goes that way.  It would be no hard feelings to GL, I just can't support that trend in gaming.

 

 

Fair enough, and I certainly support your preference choice as I am of a similar mindset.

 

We are n the minority though when one looks at the overal game space, and that's an important thing to keep in mind as this game evolves, so as not to be surprised if things change. The fact that WarGaming made over 1/3 of a billion dollars from World of Tanks last year is but one indicator of the pressures that will pull game developers....and most importantly their financial backers should they be a separate group....in a certain direction.

[DeRuyter]

Judging by this thread and the devs response it certainly does seem there is a commitment to historical realism and as a sailor and age of sail enthusiast this is paramount for me. However just by perusing the forums one can see a big issue threatening to get in the way of these good intentions: Pirates. As soon as you mention an age of sail game it is one of the first topics to come up.

 

Just look at the discussion over whether pirates could obtain a 1st rate SOL, or the comparison to the existing age of sail pirate games. Why is that even a discussion, IMO because many players equate age of sail with pirates and they want to be a pirate when the full game is released.  If you were true to an 18th & 19th century historical naval simulation the golden age of piracy was long gone (ended about 1715). Certainly you have smuggling and piracy to a limited extent and we have the ships historically used for such (Lynx for one), but pirates/piracy should in no way drive the game development.

 

 

[SchurkjeBoefje]

Judging by this thread and the devs response it certainly does seem there is a commitment to historical realism and as a sailor and age of sail enthusiast this is paramount for me. However just by perusing the forums one can see a big issue threatening to get in the way of these good intentions: Pirates. As soon as you mention an age of sail game it is one of the first topics to come up.

 

Just look at the discussion over whether pirates could obtain a 1st rate SOL, or the comparison to the existing age of sail pirate games. Why is that even a discussion, IMO because many players equate age of sail with pirates and they want to be a pirate when the full game is released.  If you were true to an 18th & 19th century historical naval simulation the golden age of piracy was long gone (ended about 1715). Certainly you have smuggling and piracy to a limited extent and we have the ships historically used for such (Lynx for one), but pirates/piracy should in no way drive the game development.

 

 

Agreed. Piracy should be in the game and it should be somewhat viable, but curtailed by realistic and historical drawbacks. If that's properly executed, piracy will be a cool alternative aspect to Naval Action, instead of the main driving force for players naming themselves four hundred variations of Jack Sparrow who all want pirate Victory's. I say BS to that; that's wanting to have your cake and eat it too. 

 

 

Piracy is romanticised and overrated anyway, yet properly implemented piracy could be very fun, focusing on hit and run, stealth, hiding, hidden bases, different morale and income systems etc. I just hope the majority of the playerbase and the devs will accept the idea of not every playstyle or even faction/nation having access to the same stuff in name of balance. 

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Judging by this thread and the devs response it certainly does seem there is a commitment to historical realism and as a sailor and age of sail enthusiast this is paramount for me. However just by perusing the forums one can see a big issue threatening to get in the way of these good intentions: Pirates. As soon as you mention an age of sail game it is one of the first topics to come up.

 

Just look at the discussion over whether pirates could obtain a 1st rate SOL, or the comparison to the existing age of sail pirate games. Why is that even a discussion, IMO because many players equate age of sail with pirates and they want to be a pirate when the full game is released.  If you were true to an 18th & 19th century historical naval simulation the golden age of piracy was long gone (ended about 1715). Certainly you have smuggling and piracy to a limited extent and we have the ships historically used for such (Lynx for one), but pirates/piracy should in no way drive the game development.

 

Very well stated sir, and I agree entirely.  I've long advocated for an extremely difficult time for actual pirates.  True Pirates should be extremely rare, and those that exist should have a very short career, and I'd like to see game mechanics designed to reinforce that reality.

[Destraex]

Average pirate career was less than a 1yr and the most know was 2.5yrs before death. So if you were a 25yr old pirate captain expect to live until 26 if you are lucky.

Where in the navy or merchant fleet you could expect to retire based on the odds.

 

Piracy though is certainly always romanticised beyond what it actually was. It was not some freedom fighters guild of power that some seem to think. Giving to the poor and taking from the rich.

[Guest raat]

Average pirate career was less than a 1yr and the most know was 2.5yrs before death. So if you were a 25yr old pirate captain expect to live until 26 if you are lucky.

Where in the navy or merchant fleet you could expect to retire based on the odds.

 

Piracy though is certainly always romanticised beyond what it actually was. It was not some freedom fighters guild of power that some seem to think. Giving to the poor and taking from the rich.

 

Yeah, but Capt. Jack Sparrow was a pirate forever...

[Destraex]

Yeah it was like some sort of weird fraternity in the movies.

Like a band of coach robber highwaymen banding together and getting tattoos so nobody would recognise them ever again.  

[Brigand]

Piracy though is certainly always romanticised beyond what it actually was. It was not some freedom fighters guild of power that some seem to think. Giving to the poor and taking from the rich.

 

Just thought it may be interesting to read the book, which is generally accepted as being the source of the romantic image pirates associated with pirates today:

 

 

Howard Pyle's book of Pirates - 1921, Howard Pyle

 

The good thing is that the copyright for this book has expired, and as a result, free ebook (epub) versions are available for download.

 

Enjoy the read,

 

Brigand

[Kpt Beowulf aka Kpt Ahab]

Piracy in the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century came in different forms, i.e. during the Napoleonic Wars "officially"through capturing of ships sent out from Britannia, France or Spain to weaken the enemies outcome from transporting goods from America to their countries.

 

2nd group was privateers in the Independence Wars against Britain, France and Spain which came from smaller countries not belonging to the "Super Powers" of that time like i.e. USA, southern american countries like Bolivia and Argentina to participate from the goods they could´t legally get hands on or simply to fight the oppressors ships. Because these countries had no own fleets  "letter of marquees" got handed out to those privateers by their respective governments.

 

It occasionally happened that privateers or official pirate hunters sent from their countries to suppress piracy changed sides and became pirates themselves. So the most part of piracy was ordered by the big powers at that time or other upcoming countries fighting for independence. A small amount of pirates were people who did piracy out of pure necessity cause they were poor and had no other way to earn some of their living.

 

The "Golden Age" of piracy happened during the 17 century and took place mostly in the Caribbean. People became pirates mostly then because they were dept servants used for the hard work on ships and elsewhere . When they were set free or they escaped they had to earn a living from something and often chose piracy because lots of them served on ships and had the needed skills. Another part was emigrants that could´t make a living. These people were commonly named as buccaneers or filibusters and had a major impact on the trade flows.

[PrezesOi]

Piracy in the 18th century came in different forms, i.e. during the Napoleonic Wars "officially"through capturing of ships sent out from Britannia, France or Spain to weaken the enemies outcome from transporting goods from America to their countries.

 

2nd group was privateers in the Independence Wars against Britain, France and Spain which came from smaller countries not belonging to the "Super Powers" of that time like i.e. USA, southern american countries like Bolivia and Argentina to participate from the goods they could´t legally get hands on or simply to fight the oppressors ships. Because these countries had no own fleets they handed got out "letter of marquees" to those privateers by their respective governments.

 

 

Bolivia was founded in 1825 and Argentina in 1816...

[Kpt Beowulf aka Kpt Ahab]

Bolivia was founded in 1825...

very attentive... but beforehand there had to be some quarrel going on i think 

[Kngsbrg]

Judging by this thread and the devs response it certainly does seem there is a commitment to historical realism and as a sailor and age of sail enthusiast this is paramount for me. However just by perusing the forums one can see a big issue threatening to get in the way of these good intentions: Pirates. As soon as you mention an age of sail game it is one of the first topics to come up.

 

Just look at the discussion over whether pirates could obtain a 1st rate SOL, or the comparison to the existing age of sail pirate games. Why is that even a discussion, IMO because many players equate age of sail with pirates and they want to be a pirate when the full game is released.  If you were true to an 18th & 19th century historical naval simulation the golden age of piracy was long gone (ended about 1715). Certainly you have smuggling and piracy to a limited extent and we have the ships historically used for such (Lynx for one), but pirates/piracy should in no way drive the game development.

 

Indeed. This is about battles between equals, not about sacking a merchant.

 

The WT/WoT model is EXACTLY what most of us in this community (at least myself for sure) are running from.  I would dump this game in a heartbeat if it goes that way.  It would be no hard feelings to GL, I just can't support that trend in gaming.

 

Exactly. Once the star has turned into a cash cow, you see game mechanics and balancing going down the drain. Instead of fixing existing content, they add new content and create a even bigger mess and view the matchmaking process as the solution for everything. This is not how this game should play out, you can be successful with high quality engineering, like e.g. Riot Games does with LoL!

[Steel]

In my opinion the developers should ignore all of us. They should ignore all the arcade players and all the ultra realism players  and just make a game that they themselves would want to play. This is the best way because they will be making something they love and thus something they will value and sweet blood and tears to perfect. Its a large world and i'm sure 100,000 people will share the vision that they have.  Don't design for others design for your self game lab. 

 

If you build it they will come.

 

 

p.s. They can still listen to the community for ideas and creative inspiration of course.

[Don Alvarez]

2nd group was privateers in the Independence Wars against Britain, France and Spain which came from smaller countries not belonging to the "Super Powers" of that time like i.e. USA, southern american countries like Bolivia and Argentina to participate from the goods they could´t legally get hands on or simply to fight the oppressors ships. Because these countries had no own fleets  "letter of marquees" got handed out to those privateers by their respective governments. 

 

Bolivia was founded in 1825 and Argentina in 1816...

 

 

very attentive... but beforehand there had to be some quarrel going on i think 

 

Yes but I doubt they handed out Letters of Marque. Bolivia is landlocked.

[Robert Danforth]

Someone ought to start a Bolivian Navy clan/fleet/whatever

[Kpt Beowulf aka Kpt Ahab]

Just forget about Bolivia then maybe and I´ll blame it on the source. Sum it up under the striving for independence of latin america in the whole and keep the mistakes as trophies...

[SueMyChin]

Ditto Raatha's comment about 'balance'.

 

I played a good bit of another game, which I won't name, but involves WW2 planes where in the early stages of the game, Japan had the worst win/loss ratio of all the nations. Players complained about how hard it was to play as Japanese planes (i.e.. probably not flying them correctly), so the developers gave them unrealistic flying characteristics which aren't true to their historical specs. It completely turned 180 degrees. Lo and behold, EVERYONE and their uncle started flying Japanese planes. Not because they were fun to fly, but because they were suddenly invincible (which I guess is fun to some people, I think it would get boring at some point).

This is where I see this game going too. It shouldn't, there is no need for it to but I fear it will.

There are a few reasons why this game can be different. 

 

• You buy a tank/plane once and it's yours forever. You don't really care how much you pay as it's there forever. In NA permanent ship loss and damage repairs should be a huge factor in choosing your ship. If I can get a ship that does the job for half the price and won't cost me the world to repair or replace I'm going for that one every time.

   

• The cost is chosen for you so the more effective ones don't suffer a supply demand cost increase. NA can be different. If prices are dictated by the players then it's largely irrelevant that one ship is weaker than another. It's still a ship and has a role, so someone will have a use for it, especially if it comes down in price because there is little demand.

   

• War thunder and WoT are strictly PVP arenas where you're forced to fight. If you're the lighter less armoured player you can't run, you're in a cage where eventually you have to fight, even if you know your chances are slim. If a player had little chance to win but was forced to fight we know they're not going to have fun. In NA you are your own master, you can avoid  conflict (or try to) if you desire, if you can't, providing the game is made well, then you only have yourself to blame.

   

• The 'tier system' is designed for an upgrade and unlock game type where players grind for XP. Tanks and planes must conform to the respective 'tiers' as they're expected to fight each other. If they aren't competitive players will get frustrated as they have to negotiate them. In NA there are no 'tiers' and no one ship therefore needs to be, nor has any right to be better than any other. This means they can be unreservedly based on historical fact. There is no reason to tweak one in relation to it's performance vs another.

  Any 'balance issues' (and there will be some when dealing with designs made centuries apart) will resolve themselves in the market organically.

   

I think there is a danger of people being influenced by games that have gone before, where arbitrary balance changes were common and sometimes necessary. They think all games must suffer them but they really don't. The realism and historical accuracy is what's captured our imaginations and the immersion increases with it. The beauty of the MMO platform is the ability to have often harsh imbalances and let the players work it out. Let them use their creativity to find solutions to problems, don't do it for them with nerfs and buffs.

[Flip]

Any 'balance issues' (and there will be some when dealing with designs made centuries apart) will resolve themselves in the market organically.

 

 

 

A very dangerous assumption. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

 

Nothing organic can happen if the system itself is not organic to begin with.

[SueMyChin]

A very dangerous assumption. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

 

What does that have to do with the supply and demand of ships?

[Flip]

What does that have to do with the supply and demand of ships?

 

Balancing ships can not be solely dependent on price of said ships. There will always be players and or guilds who are economic giants and rich making the whole economy balance perspective flawed. Whether through knowledge, raw play time, or raw determination they will amass fortunes. They will manufacture/buy/acquire the high end pricey ships that you would put behind a high price tag while solo players or players who do not make the most of the economy will be stuck with inferior products. As the better outfitted players/nations/guilds take over ports and gain more and more economic control or grow their player-bases the cycle repeats.

 

That is unless non organic barriers are put in place, thus making your organically resolving market a null point.

[Kpt Beowulf aka Kpt Ahab]

Balancing ships can not be solely dependent on price of said ships. There will always be players and or guilds who are economic giants and rich making the whole economy balance perspective flawed. Whether through knowledge, raw play time, or raw determination they will amass fortunes. They will manufacture/buy/acquire the high end pricey ships that you would put behind a high price tag while solo players or players who do not make the most of the economy will be stuck with inferior products. As the better outfitted players/nations/guilds take over ports and gain more and more economic control or grow their player-bases the cycle repeats.

 

That is unless non organic barriers are put in place, thus making your organically resolving market a null point.

That would be indeed my concern with ImagiNations based on the possibility for players/groups to build their own "political" systems. The internet isn´t per se a nice place with a democratic common sense and there are a lot of people with not so good intentions. if these people get organized in a game like NA and have the possibility to create a terror system... So there has to to be a basic grid installed that prevents these kinds of aberrations.

 

Same with a marketplace. In games like WoW you see prices only going up and if you happen to be a player who joins a server late it´s not easy to buy things because it all went sky high by the time the server/realm exists.

 

I would vote for a pre shaped fundament with rules and regulations that prevent the game from going berserk. I don´t know how that can be done but i want a civilized game not the "survival of the fittest" rat race.

[Kngsbrg]

Same with a marketplace. In games like WoW you see prices only going up and if you happen to be a player who joins a server late it´s not easy to buy things because it all went sky high by the time the server/realm exists.

 

What? Not at all. Most prices depend on demand. By the time you join the server and create your personal demand, the demand of the majority should have shifted and does not reflect your demand. Lagging behind in terms of progress is a sure way to keep prices for you at the lowest possible.

[Kiefer Cain]

Balancing ships can not be solely dependent on price of said ships. There will always be players and or guilds who are economic giants and rich making the whole economy balance perspective flawed. Whether through knowledge, raw play time, or raw determination they will amass fortunes. They will manufacture/buy/acquire the high end pricey ships that you would put behind a high price tag while solo players or players who do not make the most of the economy will be stuck with inferior products. As the better outfitted players/nations/guilds take over ports and gain more and more economic control or grow their player-bases the cycle repeats.

 

That is unless non organic barriers are put in place, thus making your organically resolving market a null point.

 

In an organic scenario, which I hope that NA tries to hold the line on there is nothing stopping anyone from becoming economic giants.  

 

There is something flawed in a game when the mechanics are skewed towards rewarding those who don't have the knowledge, play time, or raw determination to amass fortunes and/or gain an advantage due to experience.  This is a concept that has plagued another well-known sailing game.  We want intelligent players, we want players that have time to play the game, we want those who are determined to progress in the game.  These are solid types of players.  For the record, I am not a player that has a lot of time to play a game but I like to think that I have raw determination and/or a wee bit of intelligence to help overcome that fact.  

 

To gate the entrance to success in an open world is to not have an open world/sandbox-like game at all.  

 

It is not impossible for new players to climb to the top of a gaming environment.  I have witnessed many players become econ/game wizards not because they became overwhelmed by the journey ahead, but because they embraced the challenge and discovered their route to the so-called top of the game.  The game should not cater to those who are so easily dissuaded from a challenge in a game.  

 

Non-organic interventions lead to distorted organic solutions that the player-base resorts to, which in and of itself leads to a downward spiraling cycle, but one that has an end as can be witnessed by PotBS.  No matter the mechanics created to combat 'unfairness' in a game, players find new and often ludicrous ways to bypass those mechanics.