The new entry-to mission rules - suggestions for improvement

[Captain Underpants]

I was thinking about this alot last night (yeah, I'm that sad!) and think the new entry-to-mission rules are a big step backwards for the game (especially when combined with the apparent lack now of normal ai fleets/battles - I know I am struggling to find many).

 

a. Naval Action is an MMO in which surely the whole point is to get large numbers of players, playing together. To actually prevent people from playing together seems to go against the basic ethos of the genre. I know I play MMO's primarily because of the other people I encounter and play with either co-operatively or competitively and don't want to see that diluted.

 

b. It makes things much harder for newer players to get into the game. The best way for new players to pick up the basics is to jump into pre-existing battles where they are relatively safe and can ask for lots of advice etc - I know that's what I did. Missions can be difficult and overwhelming at first and new players are far less likely to have friends in the game or a clan to group up with and help them out. I think, in one stroke this may have made the initial learning-curve much steeper.

 

c. It's not historically accurate or realistic at all. Imagine actually captaining a ship (I know I am imagining this!) and seeing ships of your nation locked in furious combat, yet not assisting in any way you can. Surely you would be duty-bound to enter the fray and if you were found not to have done, subject to strong discipline by your Admiralty. Knowing I am merrily sailing by these battles because they are simply closed or an arbitary 5 minute timer is up does significantly break the immersion for me (as well as upsetting my personal code/liking for helping my fellows out in times of need).

 

d. It reduces exploration/free sailing in the world. As there are so few battles (that I can find at least) available to enter in the OW, it has reduced (my) gameplay to a simple procedure of 'get mission from port, do mission, return to port, rince-and-repeat.' It feels to me far more grindy and far less fun to be honest (though I still love NA!).

 

The primary problem with fully-open battles seems to be that players are actually penalised for playing together; ie co-operating drastically reduces the amount of gold and exp a player gets. Surely we should be aiming to reward players for interacting and playing with each other, and if we could actually do this it would resolving this issue at one stroke. The first MMO I played that I remember doing this was Guild Wars 2 in which all players who contribute to a fight earn the same exp and chance of loot. As a version of this, could we consider fixed rewards for sinking/boarding enemy ships. The way this would/could work would be that the owner of the battle/mission would receive a fixed gold and exp reward for participating in the defeat of any enemy ships in the battle. All assisting players would receive a smaller, but still fixed reward for any ships they have helped to defeat. Reward would be for defeating individual ships rather than the whole battle and a player would simply have to participate (ie cause a minimum damage level) in the defeat of any ship to receive a reward. Of course, this means that reward would no longer be tied to damage amount caused in a battle.  At the end of a battle any additional loot would be distributed randomly on a player-by player basis.  In this scenario, every player benefits from additional allies in the battle and should be happy to see players joining.

 

A secondary problem is griefing etc, for example where allied players sink a ship that the first player wants to capture.  As a potential solution to this, enemy ships could often surrender/strike their colours rather than facing certain sinking if a battle is not going well for them.  This could be more common in the case of trader ai than warship ai ships.  All ships who surrender in this manner could be automatically allocated to the battle owner at the end of the battle and unsinkable in the meantime.  Not only would this be fairer and stop a certain amount of griefing, it would also be more historically accurate as ships would usually strike their colours rather than face certain destruction.  I have already wondered why enemy ships aren't simply surrendering when outgunned and with little/no armor left - it would make more sense if they did.

 

The final problem the devs have raised is when players use existing battles as a 'safe harbour.'  I haven't observed this happening myself, but it would seem that the logical action of any captain during the Age-Of-Sail who found themselves chased by a superior enemy, upon seeing allied ships (in battle or not) would be to head for them and relative safety.  If battles had no timer at all this would allow enemies also to join these battles (potentially with greater numbers) and continue the chase.  I am not sure players should be prevented from doing something that is obviously logical and would have been equally logical historically.

 

In summary, I would like to see battles having no barriers to entry (timewise or not), but with joining of battles being beneficial to all, including the battle owner who receives help speedily dealing with enemies and no penalty to gold/exp.

 

Anyway, I simply love the game and wish the devs all the best for the future of Naval Action.

[Growler]

Couldn't agree more. As a new player struggling to get to grips with the game, I suddenly find I can't find anything to attack nor join in any battles.

If they keep this, there will be a lot of newbies put off with aimless sailing around or trying to join groups. After playing maybe 12 hours, concentrating on getting some experience and cash together I don't even know what a group is!

 

And if your some old sea salt with a floating gun fort, just remember if new players dont hang around, the game will die a death