On Premium Ships and "Pay to Win"

[Magnum]

I really do think most NA players want at least a "medium" level of ACTION - I mean it is a seafaring based WAR GAME after all.

 

Maybe not "NON-STOP" action or even "massive" action - just a battle or two every night, and some sailing and exploring in between

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

Everythings great until...

 

 

..and less fun for players wanting an open world sandbox..

What I would suggest:

 

Arena mode = More battles = more fun for pvp oriented players

 

True open world sandbox = an organic number of battles = more fun for players wanting an actual open world sandbox

 

Arena mode + true open world sandbox = fun for pvp oriented players + fun for players wanting more than loads of PVP

You mean like battle grounds? I like this idea. Maybe certain permium ships could be enabled only in an arena mode. If you have a spare half hour and fancy a quick match, seems perfect for time limited gamers. I still think most would prefer OW though, but the size may make getting quick PvP a problem.

[Similon]

The main thing that interests me in the open world is sailing around, as part of a fleet, in a pretty ship. Doing, whatever. Not necessarily constant Kombat, but we won't know until Open World rolls out.

As long as I can continually do that, I'll be happy.

 

What does this require? Easy enough access to ships to keep doing that regardless. Yes, If I'm on a 2 week long losing streak, I would expect to not be freely using the grandest of ships for my failure. But I may not like it 

I am in the portion of the community that'd like to be able to use the premium content I've paid for, but how to do that without giving people infinite free revivals?

2 things that spring to mind are Time Gates, and making you rebuild/buy it.

 

On Time-Gates:

If it had, say 5 durabilities, that took 24 hours to- refill(?), that'd work for me. Depending on how you define the window - 24 hours from each loss, or 1 loss at a time, 24 hours for each. (1 or 5 days, respectively). I would of course favour X time from each death, since I'll probably be in the spamming premium ships group 

I can see why this could be detrimental to other players experience. Me, rolling 5 clones of 10 different premium ships out of a port under attack... Maybe make people respawn at a different port? I dunno - I'm in no position to speculate.

 

On Rebuilding:

In most games, resources are either a trivial concern, or an impossible grind wall. It's hard to find a balance because if you make something easily accessible for the majority, a minority will abuse that to a remarkable extent. As we are all well aware.

I'm guessing this would either lead to people using a ship every couple of weeks, or people having seemingly infinite durabilities (unless it was capped).

 

But once again, and as always, this is pure speculation.

[Mirones]

not really French Spain and Brits can fight each other in the Straith between cuba+Haiti+Jamaica lower antills(from San Juan islands to Trinidad) will be full of French vs Spain vs Brit vs Danish vs Swedish vs Dutch

 

between Florida and Cuba+ Bahamas will be Spain+US+UK+(French?) 

so more than enough options for quick action but dont expect any "balanced" matches like in an Arena.

[Plak]

On insurance

Pledged ships in SC initially came with the life time insurance - which equals unlimited losses coverage.

The loss is not replaced immediately and the speed of replacement depends on the number of times you lose the ship in game. 

They abandoned a life time insurance when they saw they can actually make more money selling tiered insurance (1-12 months) to players.

 

They still have LTI for new ships that are drawn up (concept sale), but that is beside the point.

Insurance in SC is payable with in game currency. All ships in SC are payable with in game currency.

 

The point I wanted to make is that everything you can buy with real money can be obtained with in game currency as well (this statement has been stressed by Chris Roberts very often).

 

On selling currency

At this stage we believe that currency must be earned by playing.

Even WOT does not sell XP, forcing you to play and create content (be the content) for other players.

Star citizen and EvE sell currency because they see the place for it in game and it works well for them (it does no allow to skip content, and you still have to level up skills for the battleship to buy it). 

 

Final decision on selling currency in the store (like EvE or GW2) will depend on the depth and importance of economy in game and it is too early to tell or provide definite response.

The point is that some people might only have limited time to play but they have money to spend to make up for missing time.

In games where you can not buy your way up these people are limited to lower tier content. They hit the higher tier of the game very late if at all.

This leads to higher tier content being available only to people who choose to play a lot and does limit those players content as well, because there are less players in that tier available to play.

 

Buying your way up has a benefit for both parties (players with time and players with money): more content in the higher tiers.

 

Now there are several levels of what content you can buy your way up.

In SC the exchange of IG and RL money is straight ahead because you can only buy stuff and there are no character skills. (the amount of IG currency to buy will be adjusted to what can be earned IG by playing the game so that will be balanced within reason).

 

When there are Character Skills involved the whole thing does get much trickier.

War Thunder being an "arena" game allows you to buy your way up to higher tier within reason:

- Premium vehicles can be bought any time.

- IG money can be bought any time.

- XP for skills can be bought based on how much and how well you play. (conversion of general XP earned). resulting in an increased rate of going through content.

 

EvE having Character Skills as well has chosen to only allow for conversion of IG and RL money and no conversion of RL money to XP.

 

To sum it all up. There are different approaches to solving the challenge of Premium Content. I just wanted to point to solutions that do not lock out any part of the player community of parts of the game however they choose to play it (investing time or money). By making all items of the Premium Content available to all players in some way (buy or play) this can be achieved.

[admin]

Everythings great until...

 

 

..and less fun for players wanting an open world sandbox..

 

 

 

Don't understand why more battles is bad for players wanting an open world sandbox. Crafters and traders might want to avoid fighting - but all other players do want naval battles. + We don't have crafting or trading in the prototype yet.

 

Also don't understand what you mean by organic number of battles.

[Devante del Nero]

I think by organic he means battles that occur because of open world movements, trade routes, national borders, hunting grounds, etc. and not because of arranged arena instances.

 

But I don't see why it isn't a grand idea to allow both. Most modern MMOs have pvp battlegrounds that run constantly and players can jump into anytime, and also circumstantial pvp in the open world.

 

I think it's smart practice to not make it so the queued pvp is arcade mode and open world pvp doesn't matter, like most MMOs. I think they should both affect one another, like... perhaps the battlegrounds that are operating depend on actions on the open sea. And the accumulated outcomes of the queued pvp battles affects the ownership of the open sea. So... I guess kind of like PotBS if when you flipped a port a continuous port battle began that lasted until a certain time or until a certain number of victories was accumulated by a side...? I don't know.

 

Back on topic so my post is still relevant to the thread; I still stand behind pay currency being trade-able in-game.

[SueMyChin]

Don't understand why more battles is bad for players wanting an open world sandbox. Crafters and traders might want to avoid fighting - but all other players do want naval battles. + We don't have crafting or trading in the prototype yet.

 

Also don't understand what you mean by organic number of battles.

 

You've stated on many occasions your want for low down-time between battles, the ability of players to get back into the fight as soon as possible, "players time is a valuable commodity" to paraphrase one post. Hence the reason we have durabilities and the like. However, this is not conducive to a genuine open world where player's will solely dictates the state of play.

 

I'll add Explorers (which will be in the game) to your list of Crafters and Traders. Who else is there? Naval captains, pirates and privateeers (which you could argue are the same as either of the first two). That is 6 'professions' of players, 3 of whom would welcome battle and 3 of whom wouldn't. Why favour the 3 'professions' that want to fight over the others by making battles more accessible? That's not what an open world sandbox should do.

 

In the age of sail if a person wanted to experience maritime combat he would join the navies. You could so easily have an open world system where players with a thirst for PVP sign on to the naval lists and are given commands, fully crewed and victualled ready to participate in large pitched battles or small sided attacks on the other navies & their shipping. Any players who share you desire for "more battles" can find their place here.

 

You would then have a genuine open world sandbox without agenda for "more battles", without mechanics that benefit the PVP orientated players, outside of the navies. In this world battles will take place where there is reward > risk and consequence (an organic number of battles) as opposed to what we're likely to end up with.

 

I appreciate that players will always want to PVP, be it because players have little time/desire to sail long distances or grind, chase targets or just because their friends are only on with them at certain times, that's just the nature of online multiplayer gaming, but surely an arena type system accommodates these players best?

Games like WoT take the 'fun' part of WW2 (the combat) and dispose of all the 'boring' tactical manoeuvring, economics and logistics of supply lines. This is what we'll have in open world and that's why people are excited about it, I just think it shouldn't be undermined by a penchant for a system that's all combat with the context of an open world on the side.

Edited April 15, 2015 by SueMyChin

[Prater]

With Premium Ships I see following problem: Some rich kid bought Premium ship (which has no benefits compare to normal ones) and meet skilled player in the Ocean (this is open world game, so no levelling mechanism).

 

1st options: Premium ship destroyed and kid lost battle. Kid come on forum crying that he spend REAL MONEY and get no advantage (lost in fact)

That is exactly how it should be, and why the ships aren't pay to win. Skill will win out.

 

and spamming support demanding refund because GAME BROCKEN.

Throw in Eve comment.

2nd option: Skilled player captured Premium ship, but it will be taken from him and returned to "legal owner" because Premium ships cant be lost. So guy , who master his skills will waste his time and likely will have to repair his own ship.

 

If Devs can avoid this problem, then nothing bad in Premium Ships. I personally think that "cosmetics" upgrades for real money (unique skins, personal flags/banners) will be much better options.

 

I assume we can sell the captured ship and it will be worth quite a bit of money.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Prater

[jodgi]

.... That is 6 'professions' of players, 3 of whom would welcome battle and 3 of whom wouldn't. Why favour the 3 'professions' that want to fight over the others by making battles more accessible? That's not what an open world sandbox should do...

 

What do you imagine the ratio of players that want to fight vs. players that'll avoid fighting will be? (We all know that's oversimplified, but hey!)

 

edit: Noticed the ninja edit

Edited April 15, 2015 by jodgi

[SueMyChin]

What do you imagine the ratio of players that want to fight vs. players that'll avoid fighting will be? (We all know that's oversimplified, but hey!)

 

edit: Noticed the ninja edit

 

I wouldn't have a clue and I would hazard a guess neither would the devs. Like myself, I imagine there will be countless players looking to try everything. It's worth noting that I certainly wouldn't want to be a trader if there was no threat of combat either. What would be the point in that?

It's irrelevant anyway, if there are enough players wanting to be traders, crafters and explorers to justify going to the effort of making an open world then it justifies giving them an open world. All of the other 3 'professions' can be simulated in an arena style game with a 2d open world map, it's everything besides the combat that necessitates the open world itself.

[Schuetzengel]

guessing from my experience with pvp arena in potbs, only a few will touch a pvp arena in this game if it is similar to the current sea trials. if it were designed like wot/wows it would probably be more appealing, but the real thrill of high staked combat combined with immersion and the feeling of an open world will be irreplacable. i predict that most of pvp oriented players will be on the open sea and not in some arena

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

I'm going to be very careful as we have left topic here.

I think premium ships should be re skinned versions of other ships e.g. Bellona could be replaced by the Téméraire. They should have the same characteristic, same durability, same hidden skills, etc. I don't think its ethical selling a player an item that is either better or worse than an equivalent item earnt in game.

I don't think buying a better ship is skipping content as you will always need to learn how to sail it, but buying skills is skipping content. I also believe skills have to be earnt not paid for.

I'm pleased to hear from admin that 1st and 2nd rates are not planned to be available in this way as yet. I do hope that 3rd and 4th rates will be available.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

What do you imagine the ratio of players that want to fight vs. players that'll avoid fighting will be? (We all know that's oversimplified, but hey!)

 

edit: Noticed the ninja edit

 

In my experience, if you make PvP loss too serious and important, the number will be miniscule.  If you make PvP loss a setback, but not a huge one, you'll get far more people that will try/participate in PvP, enter dangerous areas, etc.  I'm hopeful that durability will play a part in that dynamic, and I'm also hopeful that mechanics will ensure that the average ship running around in Open World is in the Surprise and smaller category, which means far less chance of getting WTFBBQPWNED if you're sailing anything less than a Third Rate, a lower barrier to entry for new/casual players, and a fun, helpful role for new folks in Privateers and Brigs.

 

ETA - and sorry, yes, this is heading off topic.  Let's circle back to Premium Ships and Pay to Win.  There are a few topics on the limitation of First Rates in the Open World, as well as the Loss Mechanics where this can be discussed.

[SueMyChin]

guessing from my experience with pvp arena in potbs, only a few will touch a pvp arena in this game if it is similar to the current sea trials. if it were designed like wot/wows it would probably be more appealing, but the real thrill of high staked combat combined with immersion and the feeling of an open world will be irreplacable. i predict that most of pvp oriented players will be on the open sea and not in some arena

 

I fully appreciate that, there must be a place for PVP in open world but it shouldn't be given precedence over any of the other roles.

One of the most cited reasons for "more battles" in OW is players time and the game not consuming too much of it. This is why I think players would play an arena mode if it were included and I would be all for the WoT/WoWarships angle to be applied to it. That's actually what some of the players would prefer over an open world.

It would be welcomed by those players and those wanting to learn combat without risk, it could earn GL some cash through premium ship sales and it would mean that the pressure for a heavily PVP orientated open world would be lifted to some extent.

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

I fully appreciate that, there must be a place for PVP in open world but it shouldn't be given precedence over any of the other roles.

One of the most cited reasons for "more battles" in OW is players time and the game not consuming too much of it. This is why I think players would play an arena mode if it were included and I would be all for the WoT/WoWarships angle to be applied to it. That's actually what some of the players would prefer over an open world.

It would be welcomed by those players and those wanting to learn combat without risk, it could earn GL some cash through premium ship sales and it would mean that the pressure for a heavily PVP orientated open world would be lifted to some extent.

id like the option even if it was just trafalgar Thursday, organised battles. I want battles, big battles, and the other stuff, while sailing an reasonably priced, effective and not gimped permium ship.

[Flip]

Everythings great until...

 

 

..and less fun for players wanting an open world sandbox..

What I would suggest:

 

Arena mode = More battles = more fun for pvp oriented players

 

True open world sandbox = an organic number of battles = more fun for players wanting an actual open world sandbox

 

Arena mode + true open world sandbox = fun for pvp oriented players + fun for players wanting more than loads of PVP

 

 

Until you realize arena pvp is not what pvpers want. PvP'ers want pvp with risk/reward, therefore part of the open world.

 

You are over analyzing things. There will be parts of the open world where PVP is plenty (near some capitals, chokepoints etc). and there will be areas where there is little to no PVP - the rest of the world where PvP'ers are not concentrated. Its not cut and dry.

[SueMyChin]

Until you realize arena pvp is not what pvpers want. PvP'ers want pvp with risk/reward, therefore part of the open world.

 

You are over analyzing things. There will be parts of the open world where PVP is plenty (near some capitals, chokepoints etc). and there will be areas where there is little to no PVP - the rest of the world where PvP'ers are not concentrated. Its not cut and dry.

 

You've just proven half of my point for me flip. By increasing the amount of PVP in Open World it dilutes the consequences of an engagement giving little meaning to them.

 

Like you said we want 'risk/reward', with the inevitability of 'more battles' comes reduced risk/reward in the fight. With the caveat that non combat orientated players are disadvantaged as the pirates and privateers of this world are benefited by a system with onus on 'more battles'.

I appreciate the 2nd paragraph but that's got nothing to do with my argument. Those organic areas that attract PVP will remain either way. it's the actual amount of battles that I'm concerned with. Which is why I bring it up here in the premium ships thread. Premium ships with unlimited durability (in fact the whole ship durability system altogether) is another mechanic introduced with the intention of encouraging more battles.

 

Again, in a WoT style arena mode premium ships would not be pay to win, in fact there is no real advantage to them but in open world they enable players to fight more often which is an advantage.

[Bernhart]

It's just a game. It's just a beta. Anybody who has enough energy at the end of the day to vent and emote about how other game players choose to spend their time, their money, and frankly, their talent, simply isn't worth the even the energy to put them on an ignore list. They are just the same legion of wankers who die and die and die in WOT and then bitch about the game being unfair. They are in the same category of "players" who enjoy ganking care bears in Eve Online.

 

They will change when they grow up, move out of mommy's basement, get a job and a life, or maybe not. The world is made up of Makers and Takers. There are not any other categories. If you are a Maker it makes sense to "buy" stuff, because you can, you can always get more money. If you are a Taker, it makes sense to whine and cry and bitch because you have no other way of coping with reality. This is true in games AND in real life. And don't forget that an aweful lot of folks believe that everyone thinks like they do and if they find someone who doesn't think like that, then that person MUST be stupid or something.

 

That's just the way life is. NA has the potential to be a great game. I think the guys and gals who designed the open ocean trials graphics MUST have gone to sea. It is very realistic, just the salt spray and cold is missing. So lets stop complaining about the way others play and get out on the briney deep and sink ships.

 

Cheers

Bernhart

[Devante del Nero]

Anybody who has enough energy at the end of the day to vent and emote about how other game players choose to spend their time, their money, and frankly, their talent, simply isn't worth the even the energy to put them on an ignore list.

 

They are just the same legion of wankers who die and die and die in WOT and then bitch about the game being unfair. They are in the same category of "players" who enjoy ganking care bears in Eve Online.

 

They will change when they grow up, move out of mommy's basement, get a job and a life, or maybe not. The world is made up of Makers and Takers. There are not any other categories. If you are a Maker it makes sense to "buy" stuff, because you can, you can always get more money. If you are a Taker, it makes sense to whine and cry and bitch because you have no other way of coping with reality. This is true in games AND in real life. And don't forget that an aweful lot of folks believe that everyone thinks like they do and if they find someone who doesn't think like that, then that person MUST be stupid or something.

 

So lets stop complaining about the way others play

 

Seems legit.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Devante del Nero

[Kookaburra]

All I want to say is that while I support stuff like premium ships, make sure players that payed the base price still get a lot out of the game, including some customization. 

 

This isn't a F2P game, you still gotta pay to get in. You don't want people to be discouraged when entering the game by seeing a bunch of things that they need to buy and them being restricted until they pay a bit more. Make it so the game is still very enjoyable and complete without paying extra, but those who pay some more can get some extra enjoyment/benefits, but nothing too severe. 

Edited April 16, 2015 by Kookaburras

[Pantufas]

I Hope they go for the cosmetic part.

They have to make money, that point is a no brainer.
But I do hope they don't sell "superior" ships in store, that usually ends up badly.

If i had my say i would point to specific flags and decorative items, xp boosters, and cosmetic ships.
On a last case a mix could be awesome, a monthly fee maybe for more "character" slots, or maybe to have more ships in dock, maybe even to have a warehouse to stock goods or something.

[Mirones]

I Hope they go for the cosmetic part.

...

and cosmetic ships.

 

thats what the prenium ships will be they are nothing more than a thank you for donating and suport. they will be optional and will not be overpowerd.

the only prenium ships so far is

the Yacht for Pre-orders 

 a gunboat with 2 carronades fore the ones that pre-ordered befor 1st of January this year.

 

we have atm more important things to do than prenium stuff.

like finishing the game.

[Doogerie]

Are you serious??

We all payed for this game. Many of us supported this game from the start, and many of would continue to support by buying premium ships and donations, but seriously? Everything you suggested in your post was at the least, presumptuous, and at times downright insulting.

Every member of the sea trials has paid for this game. We paid to test the game, and most of all, to support it. We did NOT pay for this game, just to be told that We would have to pay more for the right to play it. You cannot suggest transforming Naval Action into a subscription/pay to win game simply because you have the ability to spend amount of money that to some are exorbitant. Not everyone can continually pay for the privilege of paying, or the ability to win.

It would be wrong to tell those who already bought the game that If they want to continue playing, they need to pay. And I absolutely disagree with using RL money to get ahead of those who need to grind just to get even. I'm sorry, but that would be totally unacceptable to the current playerbase and the future players as well.

I totally agree some of us can't afford to pay every month or buy every new ship out there however there is nothing wrong with new DLC look at Rise of Flight for example the base game gave you 3 capable aircraft and then if you wanted somthing new you can pay a small resonabel price I think it's about £10.00 for one aircraft I would be more then willing to spend that on a ship .

(Sorry for any spelling errors I am dyslexic)

Edited April 19, 2015 by Doogerie

[Schuetzengel]

the only problem i see left in premium ships is how they still wont be overpowered in the average gameplay. i.e.: premium ships wont be better than high quality ships, but how hard it is to obtain a high quality ship? paypal is easy. and if superfrigates and 3d rates are made as premium, they will tend to be used in most port battles