On Premium Ships and "Pay to Win"

[Austrum]

So far 7000 players took part in sea trials. I highly doubt that many clans number over 100 people, and at the moment there are only several "big" clans. That being said, it is highly improbable that any clan will even come close to rivaling a smaller nation like Sweden. Clans are simply a way of connecting with other players. They should certainly be able to have a significant presence within their nation, but they shouldn't become massive "navies" unto their own. This is why I am very wary of the ability of players to start new nations.

 

We only have 7000 players on a game that has had virtually no recognition or marketing.  How big do you think it might get after it has recognition and marketing?  Also look too EVE Online again.  They have about 300k subscribers which is rather small for an MMO today and they have Corporations running around with 1000+ members, not to mention the huge alliances consisting of many smaller corps.    Massive player owned Navies will happen, guarantee it if the game is even half way successful. 

 

To bring this back on topic.  I wonder how premium ships will be utilized by these large societies, if at all other than just some players wanting premium ships?

Edited April 10, 2015 by Austrum

[Jeremiah O'Brien]

Well, to avoid this, make it impossible to build privately owned ports. All ports must be allied with a nation.

This is also a reason why "neutrals" should not be a part of the final release. Otherwise we would see clans operating under the "neutral"status and creating their own nation/navy. Neutral needs to be a placeholder for future smaller nations.

Edit: Also, there should not be an option to create new nations. Every player should have to choose a nation, at in the beginning. If they wish to turn pirate later,that is their own choice. But no new nations.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Jeremiah O'Brien

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

I still maintain that new, player created nations is what will keep the game fresh and interesting.  Those shifting alliances, betrayals, and politics are what will keep folks coming back, and will prevent an "England Stronk, England always wins, everyone re-roll England" situation (just an example, judging from what I've seen, it'll be Sweden  ).

[Johny Reb]

I still maintain that new, player created nations is what will keep the game fresh and interesting.  Those shifting alliances, betrayals, and politics are what will keep folks coming back, and will prevent an "England Stronk, England always wins, everyone re-roll England" situation (just an example, judging from what I've seen, it'll be Sweden  ).

I agree that it could keep it fresh but it doesn't fit with the time period in my opinion. I'd hate to see the game devolve into backbiting and betrayals. Either way though it will be hard to start your own nation. Whatever country you steel your land from is gonna come at you with a vengeance.

[Magnum]

I agree that it could keep it fresh but it doesn't fit with the time period in my opinion. I'd hate to see the game devolve into backbiting and betrayals. Either way though it will be hard to start your own nation. Whatever country you steel your land from is gonna come at you with a vengeance.

 

That part at least will be "just like real life"

[Hra_N]

I still maintain that new, player created nations is what will keep the game fresh and interesting.  Those shifting alliances, betrayals, and politics are what will keep folks coming back

As a long time Eve player, +1 to this. People will form — even if they're not formally 'legitimized' inside the game — groups within the npc navies. And the game will be better for it.

[Johny Reb]

As a long time Eve player, +1 to this. People will form — even if they're not formally 'legitimized' inside the game — groups within the npc navies. And the game will be better for it.

I didn't play Eve for more than a month but all I've ever heard about it is that the social aspect of the game revolves around scamming other people. The bigger the scam the more "street cred" you receive. That tells me there is not much to the game even though it may provide an entertaining element that keeps people around.

 

Naval Action, I imagine will have more depth. You fight for a cause and that is your Nation. Even if you don't care for one of the other clans, you have to work with them. The challenge comes in becoming a leader in your nation and bringing the groups together not separating them and alienating some in the same nation that you have signed on to protect. In Eve, it sounds as if the game revolves around the clans and alliances but in NA it revolves around the Nation. Constant or regular civil wars will just ruin the feel of the game.

 

If you want civil wars and player owned nations then I would suggest that you advocate for a fantasy world without any true historical nations. Its the only environment that this makes any sense with.

[Magnum]

I didn't play Eve for more than a month but all I've ever heard about it is that the social aspect of the game revolves around scamming other people. The bigger the scam the more "street cred" you receive. That tells me there is not much to the game even though it may provide an entertaining element that keeps people around.

 

Naval Action, I imagine will have more depth. You fight for a cause and that is your Nation. Even if you don't care for one of the other clans, you have to work with them. The challenge comes in becoming a leader in your nation and bringing the groups together not separating them and alienating some in the same nation that you have signed on to protect. In Eve, it sounds as if the game revolves around the clans and alliances but in NA it revolves around the Nation. Constant or regular civil wars will just ruin the feel of the game.

 

If you want civil wars and player owned nations then I would suggest that you advocate for a fantasy world without any true historical nations. Its the only environment that this makes any sense with.

 

I didn't ever play EVE - but it it obviously a fantasy "world" with not realistic base of nations = totally different than NA with it's historical basis of real nations.

 

In NA if an individual Captain or even a small group of Captains strike off on their own to form a "new" country ---- they will just be Pirates, won't they?

 

Pirates will be able to exist in NA - at least until Johny, or I, or any of a bunch of others catch them and hang them!

[Brigand]

I didn't play Eve for more than a month but all I've ever heard about it is that the social aspect of the game revolves around scamming other people. The bigger the scam the more "street cred" you receive. That tells me there is not much to the game even though it may provide an entertaining element that keeps people around.

 

I used to play EVE, I stopped because they went down the road of 'streamlining' (=dumbing down) the game.

 

Like with many games, EVE has a lot of myths foating around. EVE is a hardcore sandbox game: you are encouraged to do whatever the game allows you to do (except for abusing bugs/cheating). The game used to have a horrendous learning curve; they did not hold your hand, instead, it was up to you to survive. This used to be the very selling point of the game: If the game would have been mistake-friendly, it wouldn't have had the same appeal, at all.

 

Because the game assumes that players can think for themselves, there are no rules against such things as selling an empty container for a billion credits, as such, scams are allowed. Does this mean that there are a lot of scams? I would say maybe as much as 1% of the overall market and auction offers. Are scams like this easy to spot? The majority of players think so. Unfortunately, it is the new players who are the most common victim, they still assume that a deal that seems to good to be true is an oppotunety for profit. Greed is their downfall. (and like most people, they blame their mistake on other/the game). I'm sure there are people who think they are more cool if they pull off a bigger scam, but the fast majority of players has better things to do (like playing the game).

 

If you never played the game, EVE may seem like an awfull negative environment. Yet, I can assure you it does not have to be, there are all sorts of players, some are competetive, some mine asteroids, most of them enjoy PvP and the depth of the game. The social aspect of the game typically revolves about planning team opperations. The social and planning tools available are quite strong, as is fleet organisation and chain of command tools. Massive PvP battles is what keeps most people around. I've yet to find another game that gives me the thrill of jumping a fleet of some 230 players into the midst of a massive battle, because we where contracted to reinforce the loosing side (we lost that time).

 

I surely hope Naval Action will have a gameplay as deep as EVE some day... I would be rather happy if they merely commited to working towards that goal for the next 10 years. I hope they can get the cashflow running to make it happen.

 

~Brigand

[Karnaught]

I agree that it could keep it fresh but it doesn't fit with the time period in my opinion. I'd hate to see the game devolve into backbiting and betrayals. Either way though it will be hard to start your own nation. Whatever country you steel your land from is gonna come at you with a vengeance.

From a pure facts perspective, late XVIII early XIX was the first round of liberal revolutions. And the first attempt to made new states from former colonies, like the Great Colombia that break up in 3 different states. Or United Provinces of Central America that break up in 5. There is a lot of possibilities even if we leave away "what if" History. 

 

1775-1783  American Revolutionary War  

1789 French revolution. 

1791-1804. Haitian Revolution, first slave revolution in colonial America.

1810-1823. Independence war of Venezuela, Mexico, Peru... (All Spanish continental colonies lost). 

1821-1824 Brasil Independence

 

If there is enough players could be interesting the developing civil wars and eventually new plausible states raised from former bigger empires. The time line gives a lot of facts to tweak the game "storyline” and that's only between 1773-1825 period. If we go back even more we can found lots of interesting events:

 

-Germans in Venezuela 

- Dutch in Brazil between 1630-1654. 

- English Civil war 1642-1651

- Anglo-Dutch wars

-Glorious Revolution 1688 

- Spanish Succession War 1701-1714

-  Russian Colonization of America (They arrive to Northern California)

- Jenkin's Ear War (Brits vs. SPA.) 1739-1748

- Carnatic Wars 1744-1766

- Seven Years War

- Convention War (FR vs. SPA) 1793-1795

[Austrum]

I didn't play Eve for more than a month but all I've ever heard about it is that the social aspect of the game revolves around scamming other people. The bigger the scam the more "street cred" you receive. That tells me there is not much to the game even though it may provide an entertaining element that keeps people around.

 

Naval Action, I imagine will have more depth. You fight for a cause and that is your Nation. Even if you don't care for one of the other clans, you have to work with them. The challenge comes in becoming a leader in your nation and bringing the groups together not separating them and alienating some in the same nation that you have signed on to protect. In Eve, it sounds as if the game revolves around the clans and alliances but in NA it revolves around the Nation. Constant or regular civil wars will just ruin the feel of the game.

 

If you want civil wars and player owned nations then I would suggest that you advocate for a fantasy world without any true historical nations. Its the only environment that this makes any sense with.

 

You don't understand anything about EVE obviously.

 

First player corporations have evolved to the scale of large nations in terms of economies and naval power.  They even have a full time Ph'D level economist that works for CCCP to keep the in game economy balanced it operates at such a large scale.  That being said, at the highest levels, you have play societies operating at something like the levels of a nation including all the political maneuvering, espionage, double dealing, embezzlement, corruption and what not that goes on in the real world.  However this isn't the social aspect of the game, not at its base level anyway.

 

The Social aspect of EVE generally resides in smaller segments of these large corps, maybe a group of buddies the make up a fleet or perhaps even in a small corporation of maybe 20 members.  Usually this players, the vast majority of them are good friends, just out to have a good time.  

 

As far as Naval action.  Unfortunately there is absolutely no way to insure that the game or players conform to history which is why you have to look to a game like EVE with its massively large player societies which are backed by massive wealth and military power and how they will influence the game world.  Best way to view Naval action is a sort of "Alternate Reality" where the players are going to write the history.

 

(note: Alternatively, I guess Games Labs could play the national powers and sail a massive NPC fleet over and squash the players who get out of line with god mode ships, but that wouldn't be too much fun). 

[Similon]

I think for Naval Action, it would make a heck of a lot more sense to look to Elite Dangerous than EVE.

 

Elite Dangerous has its 3 major political powers, a load of independent folk, and a rabble of players, gradually clawing out of obscurity.

 

We have major political powers that control everything, major powers that make any group of players seem meaningless. Yes, we'll be able to use more powerful ships and we'll make up a much more significant portion of the nations combat fleets than in ED. Players may be able to group up and make their own lil' nations and hold a few ports or whatever. But (afaik) they haven't said anything that suggests those little nations would be able to compete with the considerable power of the established empires. Not just because they'll have uncapturable capitals, but simple because a few dozen captains who found a little town and buy a couple of ships simple can't compete with a globe spanning empire.

 

I may be horribly misinformed, but hey.

[Flixerine]

I still maintain that new, player created nations is what will keep the game fresh and interesting.  Those shifting alliances, betrayals, and politics are what will keep folks coming back, and will prevent an "England Stronk, England always wins, everyone re-roll England" situation (just an example, judging from what I've seen, it'll be Sweden  ).

Exactly what I want to see as well. It could also lead to interested standoffs between player nations, and be a reason for them to actually go to war with each other and lead to a lot of fun to be had on the seas, just think of all the coordination and planning and then a probably several hour if not days long engagement between the two groups.

 

After a big battle you'll see a lot more people in smaller and cheaper ships, and there will be much more focus on making money with trade etc, it'll be fun for everyone, pirates, traders, etc.

 

If there was a way to replenish that instantly with the help of real money or premium ships, which by the way should be a thing but not unbalanced, then let it be so, I don't have a problem with someone having a slight benefit if it helps the game as a whole, also it is always amusing to see someone 'rich' who bought a lot of things with real money waste it due to bad playerskills and essentially feeds it to 'free to play' players with better skills.

 

 

Also yes, take the good parts of Eve and you're golden.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Flixerine

[Alex Starwind]

If Devs need constant money flow they can sell "Repair discount letters" for real money. Each letter give some % of discount in specific dock for some numbers of repairs and disappeared after that. It not create misbalance because this letter not make repair faster or better, only say 20% cheaper and allow you , say, 10 repairs. Skilled player may never need it, but in same cases it can be life saver. It also can have historically accurate explanation in game: Some rich captain pay island Governor (Devs) some gold (real money) in exchange of letter to local dock owner with order to give that captain repair discount.   

[StaleMemes]

Taxes would make it a lot like real life. Except that I came here for the real life 17-18th century sailing experience, not the real life governmenttakesallyourhardearnedmoney experience 

 

Big NO to takes from me I'm afraid.

[Devante del Nero]

The best way to deal with this issue is how PotBS did it. (which is a sentence that isn't used often)

 

That is, the buyable game "currency" is tradeable in-game. So, if you are a player with more time than money and want to grind for the extra coin you could buy the special currency in game from a player selling it to use for the pay content.

 

And if you're a player with extra money to spend or more money than time, you can buy the currency and sell it in-game to make big gold on your toon.

 

Everybody wins.

 

I played PotBS for almost two years and never spent a cent on it, I like the game but it always seems on the brink of going under and I never like the direction they're taking the developments. Even so, I had one of the largest ships in the game and p2w repairs/etc just from playing the game because I could buy the pay currency from the auction house.

[Johny Reb]

I knew I'd get all the Eve guys in a tizzy. lol.

 

I'm not against the possibility of a revolution but if it happens all the time then thats a problem.

 

I'm also not an over the top realism junkie and have often argued that we are trying out the "what ifs" but if it happens all the time then thats a problem.

[SueMyChin]

I still maintain that new, player created nations is what will keep the game fresh and interesting.  Those shifting alliances, betrayals, and politics are what will keep folks coming back, and will prevent an "England Stronk, England always wins, everyone re-roll England" situation (just an example, judging from what I've seen, it'll be Sweden  ).

 

 

Exactly what I want to see as well. It could also lead to interested standoffs between player nations, and be a reason for them to actually go to war with each other and lead to a lot of fun to be had on the seas, just think of all the coordination and planning and then a probably several hour if not days long engagement between the two groups.

 

After a big battle you'll see a lot more people in smaller and cheaper ships, and there will be much more focus on making money with trade etc, it'll be fun for everyone, pirates, traders, etc.

 

If there was a way to replenish that instantly with the help of real money or premium ships, which by the way should be a thing but not unbalanced, then let it be so, I don't have a problem with someone having a slight benefit if it helps the game as a whole.

 

The reason political manoeuvring and espionage come to pass in EVE was because it benefited the clans to do so and therefore the game. It was a massive part of 18th century life in the navy and it should be encouraged in NA too.

Some reasons why I don't think it will be as prominent in NA as EVE (or the 18th century naval environment):

• You can't change from one nation to another, which is a bit of a silly idea in my opinion. I think you should be able to but as a consequence, you're now looked at as a Pirate by the nation you betrayed. This could be a downfall of what seems to be a simplified nation/pirate system.

   

• Premium ships (whoo, back on topic). The durabilities, premium ships and basically anything that the devs implement to aid their preference for short turn around between PVP, will only serve to dilute the impact of any action (I've argued this before ). As a result any advantage gained from migrating from one group to another (and the consequences that come with it) will be short lived and diluted.

This is the biggest sticking point to premium ships (and durabilities) for me. I think it will dumb down the game, moving it away from the harsh world of EVE and stand to turn the economy as well as the clans & nations into a big side plot to the mass PVP rather than the purpose of the PVP.

[ingerad]

We will have to wait and see what is actually tabled.  I have not seen a post where Admin has stated "we will sell in-game currency for IRL money".  But even if they do, how is that any different than any other game?  Sony Station games (PoTBs, Plantside 2, etc), Eve Online, War Thunder, World of Tanks -- they all sell ingame currency.  And two of the afore mentioned games are MMO's with player run economies.

 

TL;DR:  all speculation until we see what GL decides to do, and even "if" they sell currency, I'm not convinced it matters.

 

From what I understand of the game and the open world there will be trading between players.  If this is the case I certainly hope they never implement a pure RL cash to in-game cash option.  That's a fine way to really mess up a player run economy as far as I'm concerned.  I don't mind the cash to credits in WoT, that's not really an open economy, the credits in that game are really just another buffer to prevent folks from rushing up the tiers (besides, the option is rather expensive and not worth it as far as I'm concerned).  But I always worry about games that open the floodgates.

 

At the very least I would have to expect them to spend a bit more time investigating the economy and making adjustments.

 

 

Overall I don't see a problem with the payment model that has been released.  Pay for the game, and use micro-transactions to keep a revenue stream.  Absolutely nothing wrong with this and it even includes a minor buffer from a pure F2P game to avoid the real scrubbiest of the scrub F2P game jumpers.  I don't think subs are really the thing of the future, micro-trans are.

 

I have played a decent amount of WoT in my life, but have also seen other F2P games.  WoT actually mostly has it correct.  Rarely are the premium tanks in that game truly overpowering.  Avoid that and the game isn't "pay-to-win".  As folks have said, provided the ships bought are not anything stronger than their same tier/type opponents it doesn't matter.  Heck, we all have the yacht now and I'd be fine if it was just we bought the permanent option to have the "plans" for that ship type so we could construct our own versions in the future.

 

One of the biggest reasons I like this game so far is that it doesn't have a pure "stat" comparison to determine victory, I've seen and been on the receiving end of the excellent play of folks in ships that are "less powerful".  One of the things that helps absolve my fears of a pay to win model is the sheer skill level that determines victory here, rather than just ship type.  As long as we don't get say HMS Warrior or access to shell gun ships as "premiums" I don't think we'll have too much to worry about pay to win. 

 

 

Just my general feelings.

[SueMyChin]

What the last two posts completely overlook here is that this isn't a WoT style arena game where everyone, premium ship owners and the rest can jump straight back into a battle after each engagement.

 

I have played a decent amount of WoT in my life, but have also seen other F2P games.  WoT actually mostly has it correct.  Rarely are the premium tanks in that game truly overpowering.  Avoid that and the game isn't "pay-to-win".  As folks have said, provided the ships bought are not anything stronger than their same tier/type opponents it doesn't matter..

 

So what if you have two groups of players fighting over one port. Both groups are mostly destroyed in a battle but one group have premium ships (regardless of how strong they are compared to the normal ships) and are able to jump right back into them (as they're never really lost like normal ships), while the 2nd group have to go off and craft or buy a new ship before they can fight. By then the port is lost to the premium ship players.

 

How doesn't that matter? It's clearly pay to win.

 

Same goes for this...

 

special currency, which can be bought for ingame currency or cash...

doesnt imbalance anything...

 

It does when it gives the players paying an immediate re-spawn while the others are off crafting or grinding for resources to buy a new ship.

The mechanics of ship loss they have decided on dilute this advantage somewhat with the repair costs and durabilities for every ship but there is still an unfair advantage and always will be otherwise nobody would ever pay for premium ships...

Edited April 11, 2015 by SueMyChin

[Jupe]

After reading these it makes me hope that this game won't be too grindy.. I mean that building should take resources, but hauling them back and forth the map for hours can be pain in behind.

About premium ships then, how about a cooldown timer for premium ship after you get sunk? Afterall you have paid real money for it it. It says it's premium so it should be premium in some ways.

If Devs want to sell premium stuf, there will always be wallet warriors. And to get those sold, stuff has to be somehow special(or shortcut to something bigger/better)

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

The best way to deal with this issue is how PotBS did it. (which is a sentence that isn't used often)

 

That is, the buyable game "currency" is tradeable in-game. So, if you are a player with more time than money and want to grind for the extra coin you could buy the special currency in game from a player selling it to use for the pay content.

 

And if you're a player with extra money to spend or more money than time, you can buy the currency and sell it in-game to make big gold on your toon.

 

Everybody wins.

 

I played PotBS for almost two years and never spent a cent on it, I like the game but it always seems on the brink of going under and I never like the direction they're taking the developments. Even so, I had one of the largest ships in the game and p2w repairs/etc just from playing the game because I could buy the pay currency from the auction house.

Eve's model is better, because you can trade time cards for in game currency. Market forces dictate the value of a time card. This model helps both time rich, who don't need to pay for play time and cash rich players who don't need to farm all there game time. Only problem with this system is you need subs, which GameLabs don't want.

[SueMyChin]

perhaps you misunderstand..

 

I quoted the part of your post I was responding to (see again below) and never mentioned a thing about the superficial suggestions you thought it necessary to repeat as I'm all for them.

 

special currency - which can be bought for ingame currency or cash...

doesnt imbalance anything...

 

If this is for buying superficial items and upgrades, cool. If it can be used to buy consumables like ships and repairs then it will be another advantage a paying player will benefit from.

[Crimguy]

I really don't like Eve's financial model that much.  Subscription-based, allows the possibility of players to "buy" their wins without putting the time into the game as much (skill points notwitstanding).

 

I like the DotA 2 model.  Ability to buy "skins", a marketplace to buy them as well, an active steam workshop.  If ships are developed by parties outside of the Devs, one is going beyond mere cosmetics, and so there will have to be some kind of review to make sure no Death Stars are brought into the game.

 

The nice thing about the age of sail is that there are no "super weapons" that annihilate everyone around them.  I'm not referring to long guns, but rather guided missiles ;-D

 

But there are ships that handled well, some that were severely crippled in a light breeze (Santisima Trinidad, e.g.), some that were poor sailers in a chop.  If possible, it would be nice to devise a way to have ships and skins be approved by the dev, in a strict fashion to prevent any ships that presented an unfair advantage.  I have no problem with paying for micro transactions, so long as they don't become unfairly expensive.  A great example of pricey add ons is with the various train simulators on Steam.  $15-20 for an additional train to putz around in seems pretty silly.

 

On top of that, I'd like to see a model that encouraged the taking of prizes - take a unique ship/addon, and it's still yours to keep.  Sinking doesn't count.

[Voodeux]

I still maintain that new, player created nations is what will keep the game fresh and interesting.  Those shifting alliances, betrayals, and politics are what will keep folks coming back, and will prevent an "England Stronk, England always wins, everyone re-roll England" situation (just an example, judging from what I've seen, it'll be Sweden  ).

I'd agree with this given that there was a dev overseen creation process. I'm not a realism junky or anything but I do enjoy immersion in whatever game I'm playing and I'd give it a week before the dickbutt empire was formed on the tip of Cuba or somesuch.