Players losing ships is bad, and here is why.

[Aetrion]

One of the biggest things that's going to hamstring this game is the fact that people can lose their ships in it. I know that to a lot of the people who are so hardcore about internet ships that they are playing an alpha this is not a popular opinion, but I'm willing to take the hate because this needs to be said. The idea that players should lose ships and have to replace them comes from a lot of incredibly flawed assumptions about how game economies work, and will do a lot more harm than good to this game in the long run. 

 

I'm going to run through all the arguments people make for why durability and ship loss are needed and then explain why those arguments are actually terrible.

 

 

1. "If ships couldn't be destroyed there would be no economy!" 

 

This is the classic argument for why stuff in MMOs should be destroyed. It proposes that if something that players can build is permanent then eventually everyone has one and there is no reason to build any more of that item, which is why every item must have a limited life span. It seems to make sense on the surface, but it simply ignores a lot of really important factors.

 

 

a.) Never ending economy

 

The economy argument assumes that the economy in a game needs to be a perfect circle, where just as many items are created as are destroyed to stop those items from accumulating. However, this is a flawed assumption for several reasons. 

 

For one, it disregards human nature. It assumes that if the game includes a circular economy then people are going to settle into a balance of creating and destroying. That simply isn't true though. People will always try to create a surplus and alter their play style accordingly. Players will always try to find a way to play the game with which they can escape the constraints of item loss. They might find a very safe way to farm gold, or they might play in a very risk adverse manner, but they will always try to adapt their playstyle in such a way that they generate a surplus of any limited resource.

 

The problem is that when you put item loss in the game in an attempt to create a circular economy you create a threshold of activity and conservation that players need to surpass in order to settle into that state of creating a surplus that all players gravitate toward. However, the players who fall below that threshold, and simply don't have the time, patience or skill to generate a surplus simply leave the game. As a result you end up with a community comprised exclusively of players who generate a surplus despite the games intention to have a circular economy that doesn't create a surplus, and all you have accomplished is lose all the players who couldn't outplay your system.

 

Secondly, it disregards the fact that games are not played forever. One of the biggest pitfalls of game design is to try and create systems that run forever, because as a designer it's easy to get lost in the idea of a game so good that people always want more. However, systems that run forever tend to be repetitive, grindy, and ultimately boring. Repetition is only motivating to the obsessed. Most people very quickly discern the pattern in any "forever system" and promptly get bored of it. Ultimately people are simply much more motivated to play a game by the promise of unlocking something new than they are by some system that forces them to get the same thing over and over again.

 

Every player is going to quit playing a game sooner or later, it's inevitable. Every game is going to shut down sooner or later, that's also inevitable. There is nothing wrong with designing a game in such a way that there is a meaningful progression through the game that leaves you feeling like your work is done if you ever get to the end, rather than trying to design a game that never ends, but ultimately drives people away much more quickly because the grind and repetition simply wasn't as interesting as the progress. 

 

A circular economy simply doesn't work. It may make logical sense, but it goes against human nature. Because human nature is to try and create a surplus, all you accomplish by creating a threshold people need to pass to create a surplus is to lose all the players who fail to pass that threshold. Humans also are very good at recognizing patterns and even better at getting bored with them, so it's a huge mistake to design a system full of repetition in an attempt to make a game that entertains forever, when in reality people likely get bored of it much more quickly if they find themselves repeating acquisitions rather than making new ones.

 

 

b.) Items don't need to be destroyed to be removed.

 

There is a huge number of ways to remove items from a game that do not involve simply deleting them for losing a fight. Most of these ways are completely voluntary, and because of that would get a much better reception from players and be much less destructive to the game.

 

The biggest thing that is used to sequester items in all MMOs is the use of limited storage space. If you simply don't have the ability to keep an infinite number of items around you eventually get rid of some items. This would work extremely well in a game like this, because if you can only have, let's say, five ships, then we're already in a place where you will have to get rid of ships to make room for others. You wouldn't even be able to own every possible build and wood type of the same ship even, so even if you're completely obsessed with one particular ship you would find yourself having to trade them away in order to try out all the possible combinations.

 

Of course trading them to other players wouldn't always be an option, so having the ability to sell them to NPCs for a relatively low price is always a good way to actually remove stuff from the economy. So even just by giving players limited storage space and making sure that NPCs buy items for low prices a huge number of items are removed from the economy all the time. 

 

Another way to remove items from the economy is through "soulbinding" them, which is basically a system that makes it so that items cannot be traded to other players. At that point the item can only be kept, or traded to NPCs, which in combination with limited storage space is a very powerful way to ensure that the item gets removed from the economy when the player no longer needs it. So all the game needs is some way to make a ship a tiny little bit better by eliminating your ability to trade it to another player later, and that ship is no longer in the economy either. In fact, maybe the specific act of giving a ship infinite durability might be what makes the vessel un-tradeable. 

 

 

c.) Items don't need to need replacement in order to facilitate trade.

 

The economy in a game doesn't have to be framed as a consumer economy in order to work. There is a general idea that the only way making stuff and selling it to other players is worth doing is if the game makes sure that the other players always have to buy more of it. However, there are plenty of other reasons why you'd want to buy a specific item from a specific player. 

 

Master ship builders back in those days weren't highly valued because they cranked out the largest number of ships to a market that was forced to buy them all, but because they would produce the highest quality of ships. By shifting the focus when it comes to crafting away from mass production to replace lost ships and instead make the effort involved in producing any player's perfect ship significantly higher there can still be a thriving market without having to run a system where most purchases are replacements, rather than new acquisitions.

 

Deep crafting where it takes a lot of time to make your great works are immensely popular in games, and for every person who enjoys it so much that they want to do it for others there are easily enough people who don't care for the crafting at all and would rather purchase to sustain an economy.

 

The crafting also doesn't have to be ships exclusively. Instead crafters could create repair kits for example, and the system would be altered so that any ship can use crafted repair materials, but would have a different rate of consuming them depending on how expensive repairing the ship is supposed to be. By making a lot of the crafting about consumables there can be a thriving player economy without needing to constantly delete items from the game. Plenty of MMOs have a perfectly viable of economy without ever deleting anyone's sword.

 

 

There is simply no reason to assume that a games economy can only function if people have to buy the same thing over and over again. Sure, it's very easy to build an economy that way, but the game will always naturally develop a community that creates a surplus despite item destruction so you lose a lot of players by putting it in the game, and on top of that pass up the opportunity to create more progress based crafting systems that potentially entertain people for years rather than bore them to death in months.

 

 

2. "If you can't lose anything there is no risk!"

 

While this is generally correct, it's misguided, and doesn't take into account possibilities to make people careful that don't make them entirely risk adverse. There are a lot of factors to consider when trying to impose penalties on people for being careless, because most of the time it simply doesn't make the game better to have extremely harsh death penalties.

 

 

a.) There are no losers in hard games.

 

One of the biggest things to keep in mind with any game is that people who constantly lose at the game will eventually simply quit. The more punishing the game makes the loss the more rapidly people are going to disappear from it, especially if it's a difficult game that takes a long time to get good at. This creates a really fundamental design challenge, which is how to run a game where people can win without running a game that constantly hemorages players because they get tired of losing. The simplest answer has always been to run a match based system where you can lose, but the moment the next game starts the slate is wiped clean and you try again. If a defeat lingers and hurts people in the long term though they are much more likely to give up and not bother anymore. 

 

Losing ships is a mechanic that is incredibly punishing on the losers in any given battle. Sure, you can lose 5 times before it's gone, but it still overall adds up to a system that is punishing and frustrating to anyone who loses a fight, and as a result will drive a lot of people out of the game who otherwise might have just kept playing and hoped for better luck next time. The bottom line is, harsh penalties for getting sunk ultimately just drive people out of the game. Nobody ever stopped playing because the loser in a game wasn't punished hard enough, but people stop playing all the time because the loser was punished too much.

 

 

b.) Skill doesn't matter if nobody engages in a fair fight.

 

When the penalty for losing a fight is very extreme then the best way to conduct yourself is to avoid fights where there is a serious chance that you will lose. Basically this encourages zerging and ganking, and punishes people for wanting to engage in interesting battles. In a game that is so heavily skill based in combat it's a huge loss to have fair fights discouraged by a system that makes it into a bad idea to actually enter any battle where that skill maters. If you outnumber your opponent 3 to 1 and have ships twice his size you're playing the system right at this point, but you aren't going to have an interesting battle, nor are you going to actually need any skill you've developed at the game to win. The only skill that will ultimately matter is the ability to set up ganks.

 

Sure, every once in a while a couple of players with huge bank accounts might decide to have some fun and duke it out in a real match, but that sort of fight shouldn't be restricted to extremely rich people who can afford the losses. Fair fights are the thing that brings in every single player who is here for the actual naval action, the ship battles. By creating a game that makes a really good fight a rare occurrence that people actively avoid unless they have money to burn those people who are really here for the fights and are interested above all else in honing their skills in fair battles are also driven away from the game.

 

It's ultimately just not a good state of affairs to have the centerpiece system of everything that's going on, all the maneuvering and gunnery and crew management simply not amount to the most important thing in the game, because if you find yourself in a situation where it actually matters you've already screwed up by ending up in a fight where you aren't guaranteed to win.

 

c.) Risk doesn't have come from losing your whole ship.

 

The argument that if your ship doesn't eventually sink for good there is no risk at all simply doesn't hold any water. Losing your cargo is a risk. Losing money for repairs is a risk. Losing a trained crew is a risk. Being sent back to port is a risk. There are plenty of reasons why you wouldn't want to get sunk that are going to keep people from just recklessly throwing first rates at each other that don't have to boil down to losing the entire ship if you ever sink.

 

Think Darksouls, nobody would argue that that's an easy game, but it doesn't ever take away the levels you already bought, or the gear you already found. The only thing you're risking at any given point in time is all the souls you've collected on your excursion so far. That's usually a big enough stake for people to avoid being totally reckless, you do want to make it back to the fire if possible, but it also never leaves you feeling like you've gone backwards if you screw up and get killed.

 

d.) Nobody is going to settle for the Cutter

 

There is this argument of "If you can't replace it, don't use it" in games like this that gets thrown around a lot, but this once again is one of those things that would only have the desired effect if people were forced to keep playing the game. In reality everyone who's on the crappy end of a system like that simply leaves at some point. The idea that the big downside to a 1st rate is the immense cost of replacing it simply doesn't pan out in reality.

 

Sure, you might get players who actually really don't enjoy the big ships because of how slow they are and who settle for something smaller and more maneuverable that they have more fun with. However, what you will never get in a game is a player who really wants to use an expensive ship, doesn't feel like they can afford it, and as a result settles for something smaller. That player once again will simply leave the game the second they realize they can't get what they want. It's another one of those situations where a system that is intended to make sure that certain things stay rare because they require dedication to maintain simply culls the all the players who can't achieve it from the game and leaves only the people who have no problem getting the thing that was supposed to be rare.

 

Ultimately trying to keep big ships rare through their cost is going to backfire. Not only is it going to drive away players who want the really big ships but can't afford them, it's also going to drive away players who really love the smaller ships but have nothing to spend their money on in that department.

 

 

3. "In a realistic game ships need to sink!"

 

Basically: Realism is irrelevant, the game is never going to be fully realistic anyways, and even with the 5 lives system it's saying that ships sink more often than what players can be expected to reasonably deal with. What the game should be is plausible, and as long as nobody drives over to a sinking ship and starts casting a resurrection spell the games plausibility is not hurt in any way by making sure that ships are permanent and reliable so that all players feel confident in spending their time unlocking them and risking them in fair fights.

 

 

4. "I don't have a problem at all with the 5 durability!"

 

I applaud your skill. However, that's not an argument why the game should forego the patronage of all the players who do have a problem with it, and if it doesn't actually affect you then why would you care if it was removed?

 

 

5. "You just want everything to be super easy, play something else you filthy casual!"

 

This is exactly the kind of attitude that results in nothing but reduced player numbers. Inconvenient and grindy is not the same as hard. All the essential skill in this game should be concentrated into the battles, the rest of the game should exist to encourage them. Right now it exists to discourage them, and that does not make the game harder, it just makes the game worse.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Aetrion

[jodgi]

No hate, baby. Only love!

I will support you in your righteous struggle!

[Siegfried]

I like some hardcore, but is a game.

 

I would prefer harder handling and complicated management of ships and crew but infinite ships quantity or easiest way to get ships.

 

I played this game from one year ago and I have my 5 minutes of "bored quit" thinking every day.

 

Capture ships is harder every time, craft ships is harder and expensive every day... is heartbreaking.

[Don Alfonso]

This person makes excellent and well explained points!

[jodgi]

btw, who are you Aetrion?

... The Messiah?

[Ghroznak]

In every single MMO I have ever played, the issue of items not perishing, ergo weapons wearing down, armor getting destroyed, you end up with the same situtation.

 

Inflation.

Flooded markets.

Impossible to make profit on low-entry crafting.

 

I've played MMO's since 1999, and seen all sorts of attempts at preventing inflation and flooded markets. The only things that worked is making items either Bind on Pickup, ergo once you loot it then it can never be sold, and you have to destroy it eventually when you get an upgrade, or they make the items perishable so they eventually become destroyed.

 

If ships are never lost in this game, then the market WILL be flooded with ships for sale, and it WILL cause problems for low-entry crafters.

 

Also, if you never have to buy new ships, and upgrades that sink with the ship, then what are you going to spend gold on? Trading to make more gold?

 

With nothing to spend the gold on, you end up creating inflation where everyone ends up sitting on huge piles of gold with nothing to spend them on.

 

Every player created economy needs money sinks. Ships are the focal point of the game and should be the focal point when it comes to a money sink. Ships sinking means players need to buy new ones. That means they are spending money, which goes to crafters, which in turn spends it on resources and components to build more ships for those that lost them.

 

If you want to never lose your ship then the easy solution is to play on PvE server and only pick fights you can win.

[Reonhato]

Can no loss of ships be done, of course it can, but you revamp the entire economy, your completely change the feel of PvP and RvR, you completely change the game.

 

Imagine if Eve had no ship loss, it would be a completely different game.

 

If you don't like ship loss I suggest you go find another game, I would bet my life on the fact that it isn't going away.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Reonhato

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

"Make sail everyday and engage them knowing that if everything else fails you can always run away. Make every fight count like if it was your last. Take care of your ship and she will become immortal." - a one peg-leg old captain in Coquibacoa

 

So far so good. We sail again tonight. She is a good lass. I guess she didn't like her last crew that much but she surely loves us.

 

-

 

out of RP I think it all bears down to each individual and how hard each one tries to enjoy the game.

Guess the suggestion is very much in line with a separate Sea Trials arenas rather than the OW, which would make sense then.

[Ghroznak]

Another point for PvP.

 

If you never lose ships, then what is PvP and port battles going to look like ?

 

Enemy will just keep returning with ships, over and over and over... cause they lost nothing, and can simply return fully armed. Instead of a battle of attrition, it becomes a battle of whoever gets bored and leaves first.

 

It's like the Pirates in Basic Cutters who just keep returning in their basic ships to wear down enemies (see separate thread).

 

Instead of this only pertaining to Basic Cutters, we propose to make this "feature" available for every ship in the game???

[Ghroznak]

Simple fact: If they remove ship loss then they might as well remove ship building and simply seed in the ships at different ports.

 

There will be zero reason to build ships if there are no ship losses. The only thing you can do is build yourself, and your pals, the best ship they can sail. After that your crafting is dead as there is nothing more you can do. Other than a random friend who just started playing the game and needs ships.

 

No ship loss = no point having crafting in the game.

 

And, as mentioned, it will completely change the PvP game where all sides have infinite ships at their disposal.

[Long Beard]

TBH I'm not really sure why this is even a topic.

 

I am also from the Eve Online mold. Ships cost money, which is why you undertook other activities in the game to generate it. 

 

The fact you can make gold from trading, missions and combat means you should always be be making money in order to fund your ships and upgrades.  Isn't that the point?

 

The risk of ship loss certainly adds to the drama, and the number one rule you always heard in eve, was don't fly what you can't afford to lose.  Same rule applies here.

 

 

 

[Aetrion]

In every single MMO I have ever played, the issue of items not perishing, ergo weapons wearing down, armor getting destroyed, you end up with the same situtation.

 

Inflation.

Flooded markets.

Impossible to make profit on low-entry crafting.

 

Every single MMO I've ever played that had items being destroyed had the exact same problems. The only thing those games accomplished was alter their community to exclude a lot of people with a lower tolerance for grind. They still end up with inflation and flooded markets and worthless low end items, because those things are inevitable in a game where money and resources are only constrained by time, since the people who enjoy the game are always those who make the time to come out on top.

 

 

1. The greatest mmo economy was in EVE Online - it had ships that got destroyed

 

2. The risk definitely adds to the excitement of a game - this is a sandbox game and part of the very nature of a sandbox mmo IS the risk

 

The biggest thing that makes Eve Online's economy great is not that the primary trade is in ships, but that it simulates manufacturing cost and markets. Building items is more expensive in very heavily populated systems, so you move to systems that are further away and build there. You can then sell the items in those systems, but since they have fewer players in them you need to offer lower prices to entice players to make the journey to pick up the merchandise. That in turn actually allows players to buy low and sell high if they buy a whole bunch of those items and then move them to a high traffic system. 

 

It's because Eve has a functional market simulation like that that it's economy is good. If they did away with losing ships in Eve Online and gave people something else to trade it wouldn't harm their economy one bit.

 

As far as risk is concerned, like I said, I prefer the Darksouls kind of risk. Don't threaten people's enjoyment of the game and call it risk.

 

 

 

If you never lose ships, then what is PvP and port battles going to look like ?

 

Enemy will just keep returning with ships, over and over and over... cause they lost nothing, and can simply return fully armed. Instead of a battle of attrition, it becomes a battle of whoever gets bored and leaves first.

 

For one, being sent back to a home port that's potentially quite far away isn't going to allow you to return over and over. 

 

Secondly, there is no reason to assume that just because you can't lose your ship there is no cost involved in laying siege to a port or losing a battle. What if you had to raise a million gold to hire the troops to actually occupy the harbor once you've won it? What if you had to craft troop ships to actually move the soldiers there? Then if your attack is repelled that gold and equipment is gone even if all the players still have their ships.  There are plenty of ways to add risk to battles.

 

And why would you want a game where attrition decides battles? What's the benefit in just handing the win to whoever grinds more? For that matter, what's the benefit in simply stopping all further fights from happening for days because one side has run out of money?

 

And if it really does turn into a crazy zergfest you could still have a system where durability has to repair over time, or by using work hours, so that if you get sunk way too many times you are still out of the fight for the day.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Aetrion

[Dedlox]

Simple fact: If they remove ship loss then they might as well remove ship building and simply seed in the ships at different ports.

 

There will be zero reason to build ships if there are no ship losses. The only thing you can do is build yourself, and your pals, the best ship they can sail. After that your crafting is dead as there is nothing more you can do. Other than a random friend who just started playing the game and needs ships.

 

No ship loss = no point having crafting in the game.

 

And, as mentioned, it will completely change the PvP game where all sides have infinite ships at their disposal.

And to add, then all you have to do is go balls to the walls at other ships ramming and flipping with no strategy what so ever. Some risk at least makes you learn to have some sort of strategy and learn to aim, not to mention if you lose 5 times in a row in missions then, ya, the game is to hard for you and you should stick to the basic cutter. Can make gold there no problem and it doesn't cost a thing but if you want to play bigger ships, there has to be some cost or everyone will have so much gold, then whats the point. I think 5 "lives" is more than a fair middle ground between risk everything and no risk at all and we should just be happy with that. You can make more than enough money on 5 dura to replace that ship and mod if you so happen to lose it.

 

This is from a total PVE perspective where loss is so minimal all ready. For pvp, I'm content that my whole ship isn't captured, just a copy. Again, middle ground, settle with it.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Dedlox

[SKurj.]

Perhaps World of Sail would be a different game they could release...   AKA Sea Trials just set it up like World of Tanks and voila..

[Tanall]

Economy isnt the only reason that ship rebuy is a thing. The other issue is to create enough 'sting' in death that people might be more cautious in their endeavors. How many of us have played games in otherwise realistic environments, only to find that realistic tactics dont work because the other guy is not afraid of death and, as such, has no issue with suicide attacks?

With durability and the ultimate mortality of ships being a thing, people will have a little more incentive to place their own survival on the same pedestal as depriving the enemy of theirs.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Tanall

[Aetrion]

Every game's demise is made of individuals leaving.

 

And like I said before, there is a very simple way to discourage suicidal tactics, simply make the gains work like Darksouls where you have to make it back to port to bank your gold and XP, so being reckless means you make no progress at all.

 

It's also just bollocks to say that ships are the ONLY thing that can make for a meaningful economy. That simply isn't true, and trying to build the whole economy of the game on the loss of the most essential thing you need to actually play the game the way you like to is simply short sighted and accomplishes nothing other than drive tons of players who are here for the ships and not the grind out of the game. 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Aetrion

[Elouda]

Frankly this would kill the game for me. 5 durabilities is enough as it is, though I would prefer less.

 

There are plenty of reasons for why its important for loss to exist, several of which have been given above already. Most notably, the presence of loss, especially for the higher ship classes, means that the outcome of a significant battle or port battle will have ramifications that last beyond it. If one sides looses 5 first rates in combat, thats about 20 player-days worth of labour hours gone until they can replace them, creating possible knock on effects on engagements until they are replaced. Likewise, it means that strategically sacrificing your own ship has a lot more value and meaning, especially if you can hurt the enemy or help preserve your allies by doing so.

 

That would all vanish. No thanks.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Elouda

[Foidewall]

Most players are risk averse, and play because they want to have fun, but those players are often also those who don’t get onto the forum and give their opinion to the community, but it’s still very important to take their opinions and feelings into account otherwise we end up with a game were we have a very small hardcore player base, but a completely empty server, 90% of players are casual players and in large regard those are the most important players because its their number that makes the world alive and entertaining, if the opinion of the hardcoreplayers are chasing the casual players away the game are going to die, so the hardcore players might need to live with some decisions that they won’t like to keep the casual playerbase happy, that both goes for loosing expensive ships and the only one nation per account thing, that in my opinion are very prohibitory for wanting to try other nation, and is probably also one of the reason the nation like great Britain is so large compared to other, because gamers start at one of the nation that is labeled as easy to start learning the game, but when you first have started on a nation you don’t want to lose all you progress in case you find out that your new nation aren’t really you. (What is the problem with one nation choice per server?)

[thomas aagaard]

1. You already got 5 durability and don't loose fitting when you are sunk... there game is already very low on risk.
2. don't sail a ship you can't afford to loose... as long as you follow this rule, the financial risk is small... and unlike a game like eve, you do still get gold when you loose...

 

 

With the suggestons we might just give everyone unlimited numbers of all ships, remove gold and xp and the OW and turn this game into something like a typical FPS with rounds... where you spawn what you want...

[BramtheDutch]

Players losing ships is not bad because it prevents inflation and give the battles and the economy a meaning behind the game mechanic, because if something is lost it is lost and the economy needs to make sure it is crafting enough te compensate for the losses.

Other wise why would you engage in OW battles if that doesn't mean that you can cripple the enemy by sinking his ship.

[maturin]

In my experience, if you don't go seeking out solo PvP in hotspots (where you will be ganked regardless of loss and risk mechanics), the chance of losing a dura to another player is minimal.

 

As for PvE, I don't even use repair kits anymore, much less get sunk by AI.

[Cossack]

It's so easy to make money later game i really don't see why anyone has an issue with losing ships in a PVP server. With no ship loss there is no feeling of risk or real danger for me. I simply respawn in one of my outposts overloaded with tons of ships to choose from because i can never lose them. 

 

Personally i would have it so that every single ship has just 1 life. 

[Dedlox]

It's so easy to make money later game i really don't see why anyone has an issue with losing ships in a PVP server. With no ship loss there is no feeling of risk or real danger for me. I simply respawn in one of my outposts overloaded with tons of ships to choose from because i can never lose them. 

 

Personally i would have it so that every single ship has just 1 life. 

Which is the other extreme of what op wants. Why I think we should all be happy with a medium ground of 5 durability because to be honest, I really don't think they will change it.

[Sioncent]

Excellent post and very true in my view and experience. the Dev's need to read this!!.

[Mrdoomed]

Go play wow or something that fits your softer style of play maybe.