Buffs?

[AKPyrate]

I'm good with realistic upgrades to your ship, including some that are temporary and wear down with time (copper bottom falling off over a few months? New set of sails wearing thin?).  I also like the idea of some inherent differences to ships of the same class, whether known or unknown.  Different doesn't have to mean unequal, but can be a balanced trade off.  Whatever upgrades/negative buffs for a ship should not make the battle a foregone conclusion, but instead should make different tactics and fighting style preferable.  A stock, no-upgrade ship should still be able to win a battle, but a captain should have some say in the boat's capabilities.  At least that's my opinion.

[Balsafer]

I say nay for buffs in a realistic game unless they have a realistic reason to be used. Maybe have a skill tree where you learn certain traits as you progress.

[MrCuttleFish]

I say no for buffs. I want to be able to win or lose by my own tactics/ stupid choices and those made around me. I want to feel the full limitations of each and every ship.

[SerrialKiller]

The main point of the topic is stuff that are not or cannot be explained. More expensive powder amd stuff did not make really an loth of diffrence and it should not. Battles make you gain experience but you might see it back into reload accurcy. Like max 5% off course crew gets tired everyone does. Learn to sail the ship upgrade the guns heavier ones means slower ship lower in the wather exct. Everything like in real no patches nore anything. Yhe top of the topic fote NO

[Edward Vernon]

I hate to disagree, but there is evidence to show that high quality powder burned better and more completely and at a more predictable rate giving a greater muzzle velocity and therefore range or penetration. "Premium", smoother and rounder shot also aided accuracy as it gave less dispersion out of the barrel. The difference may not have been a lot but it was enough to make it a good investment for many a naval commander. Elements like this should, IMO, be part of the game, the only real discussion is the amount of difference it would actually make.

[6DuchiesMerchant]

I agree that some realistic purchasable items add to the depth of the experience as long as the economy has enough scarcity built in. I should have to choose whether or not to buy a few extra spars or some finely-grained powder. Outside of those example, the only buffs present should be in the skill progression of your crew and skipper. It makes sense that a particular commander is better in a combat situation than he is at finding the best point of sail. A navigator should be able to gain an extra half-knot on an opponent with a slightly fast reload time. On that, I'm going to be quite disappointed if I can play forever and unlock an entire skill tree. The best navigator in the game should not then have the quickest reload time. If a captain spends all of his time 'studying' sail plans and points of sailing, his opportunity cost was in running the guns in and out or overseeing live-fire exercises. 

[Destraex]

Duchies I agree at the extremities of skill. A well rounded ship though should still have no trouble navigating. I do not believe the bell curve should be too steep, should be more like a circle for most skills. But I am a great believer in the player not the game being skilled. Although I do want the AI crew to get better in general through training and experience. But it should not be assumed they get better like most games do... automatically improving skill. Some crews are just never going to pass their potential, which may be low. So perhaps we need to be able to hire or swap out individual crew.

But for something like trading skill and cargo yes the crew should not be military precision at tactical manoeuvre and gunnery.

[Germanico]

Buffs actually are Status Effects, and as such often included in sims. How else treat morale, wear and tear etc.

I believe and hope these are the "buffs" in consideration. Anything else would be contrary to basic design and the suspension of disbelief.

[Destraex]

The point is Moral and Wear and Tear should not be able to be controlled by the player through paying or applying buffs. 

Total War did that to it's detrimnet as a cheap way of not having REAL mechanics to depcit the same thing

 

As a result total was is considered much more of a babies game than when the original medieval1 or shogun1 was around.

[Amoral]

Let's take as a given these two facts:

1. A crew that has served together for a long time reloads the guns faster than an inexperienced crew.
2. A player feels more involved in the game when he gets to make meaningful decisions, more meaningful decisions leads to more player engagement.

There are lots of ways to represent an experienced crew in game. You could just have cannon reload time be lower all the time for an experienced crew. This is the most realistic approach, but it provides no meaningful decision to the player. There is no gamesmanship derived from this system.

 

Alternately, you could have a button to push that speeds up cannon reload speed, but only for a short duration. This is harder to rationalize (maybe the master promises an extra tot of rum, or a shilling to the fastest crew), but it provides an interesting game-play decision to the player.

 

Both these options could be balanced so that the average reload time over a 5 minute span was the same, but one option is anathema to some forum members, despite the benefit it provides to the game as a whole.

 

I don't advocate for either side. But some people are acting like there is no trade-off to consider.

[Baggywrinkle]

... There is no gamesmanship derived from this system...

Ideal

FLS tried striking a balance with PotBS that erred on the gamesmanship side in a bid for mass appeal and longevity. For me that was a major error. I enjoyed watching it being developed, I enjoyed many hours in the game, but ultimately the compromises it presented were unsuccessful. My gut feeling is that success in 'age of sail' games lies either in the arcade, or embracing the simulation - the centre ground is just too hard to get right.

There are trade-offs of course...but most of the evidence seems to be that they don't work. "Meaningful decisions" (about which Amoral is quite right) don't include buff-surfing any more - gaming has moved on.

OMSI/2 was the most ridiculous game/ sim. It had actively negative gamesmanship, and yet had strong sales, a solid community, several game of the year lists, and a place in the hearts of those who played it. Not bad for a game about driving a knackered bus around 80's Berlin. You don't need 5 min clicky buff buttons

Not to say buffs can't be in there, but there's a lot to be gained from looking at games that surprisingly get some things right or that are trying new things against the odds. Sympathetic merge of game systems/mechanics into the perceived game world crops up a lot. 'Gamey' immersion breaking things, like clickies, not so much...

Baggy

[Hawke]

 Some crews are just never going to pass their potential, which may be low. So perhaps we need to be able to hire or swap out individual crew.

But for something like trading skill and cargo yes the crew should not be military precision at tactical manoeuvre and gunnery.

 

Now there is an idea, as your crew is killed in battle you can either call for volunteers or press people from ports, and the pressed men have a lower skills and experience and generally don't perform as well and also learn naval skills much slower than volunteer men. Thus making it a strategic choice between filling up your quota with low quality men now, or slowly replenishing your crew with better men over time as your reputation grows. 

[BrutishVulgarian]

I've noticed that in the Naval Action forum polls, the voters always make the right choice.    In the Star Citizen polls, the voters always make the wrong choice.

[Edward Vernon]

I've noticed that in the Naval Action forum polls, the voters always make the right choice.    In the Star Citizen polls, the voters always make the wrong choice.

Could this possibly be because we are a generally more sanguine, practical and mature lot here than in SC?

[Balck]

In the end, the same buffs will be used by most people.  This also leads to ever changing flavor of the month items/mechanics.  Ergo, do not waste development hours on them.  At least not for some time.  If introduced, and I pray to God they aren't, make them minor.  War Thunder's original upgrade system was ideal.  Minor improvements in performance with experience in an aircraft.  Play one long enough and you'll have a slight edge but not one so dominant that those without can't compete.  It was nice to have but not a must have.  Minimal grinding.  Now?  I don't even want to talk about it...  

 

Please, don't bring that sort of system to this game.  It'll kill it.

[Flip]

My only worry is a lack of complexity in the combat, but not a fan of "magic" stuff.

 

The polls show what we/you want due to the few people on here are the hardcore fans for whoever mentioned it. On star citizen its MANY more people.

[Balck]

Why is complexity 1. implicitly good and 2. exists in artificial mechanics?  I get where you're coming from.  there could be improved crew performance over time, the longer your crew serves the better it does.  Or you could apply copper plating to your ships or the like.  Just nothing like PotBS's subjective buffs and debuffs.  There's room for it but it needs to be grounded in immersion not magic, as you said.

[Flip]

Why is complexity 1. implicitly good and 2. exists in artificial mechanics?  I get where you're coming from.  there could be improved crew performance over time, the longer your crew serves the better it does.  Or you could apply copper plating to your ships or the like.  Just nothing like PotBS's subjective buffs and debuffs.  There's room for it but it needs to be grounded in immersion not magic, as you said.

 

Complexity is good not for the 1st - 100th battle but for the 1000th battle if you know what I mean. An example is Counter-Strike, at its heart its point and click, and thats all it is when you first start. Then you see the subtle things, the rushes, the call outs, the angles you can bounce grenades that make the 1000th round fun and still keeps that simple point and click fun.

[Balck]

I understand exactly what you mean but if complexity is merely in the superficial aspect then it really doesn't add much.  What you refer to in CS would be present but player controlled.  Not one instance will ever be the same.  The ship class may be, but the opposing player(s) likely won't be.  Tactics will be varied.  Yes, there are optimal ways of sailing a ship, but just like in air or armored combat, you can set up traps and ruses.  

 

Buffs/de-buffs, whether based on items or experience, would likely mean grinding.  The casual player would have to fork over cash in micro transactions to keep up with people who can sink hours into this game they wouldn't be able to, as such, they should give modest effects where people without them can still compete, albeit at a somewhat of a disadvantage.  The PotBS experience left a really bad taste in my mouth with this regard.  When I say casual I mean able to devote a limited amount of time to the game as in one or two hours a night.

 

Age of Pirates, especially modded by the Pirates! Ahoy community, had a descent system of buffs/de-buffs which were not immersion or game-play breaking.  Just don't want magic items/buttons for the sake of complexity at the expense of immersion and game play. The latter trump the former in my book.  That and arbitrary items/buffs are ripe for constant redefinition or the never ending flavor of the month.  Sorry, I just don't want to grind, I want to play the game as intended.  PVP at my heart's content, explore whenever in the mood, craft and trade.  Rather than having to kill npcs over and over and over just to get the new shiny toy which will be crap in a month because something else would be "in" requiring more mindless grinding.  Done with that.  I'm not saying this is what you're advocating, just expressing my abhorrence for such a system. 

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Complexity is good not for the 1st - 100th battle but for the 1000th battle if you know what I mean. An example is Counter-Strike, at its heart its point and click, and thats all it is when you first start. Then you see the subtle things, the rushes, the call outs, the angles you can bounce grenades that make the 1000th round fun and still keeps that simple point and click fun.

 

Right, but that doesn't mean in Counterstrike you have some magical potion that you paid a lot for (or at least, you didn't back in my day when I played it in 2000/2001).  Everyone had the same gear choices, the same options, there was no special gear that you had to buy or grind for - your advantage came in how you chose your gear before a match.

 

We have that already here.  The nuances of sailing, the weather gage, positioning for advantage, shooting accurately and well, etc. make for heavy nuance that should carry forward nicely.

[Flip]

Right, but that doesn't mean in Counterstrike you have some magical potion that you paid a lot for (or at least, you didn't back in my day when I played it in 2000/2001).  Everyone had the same gear choices, the same options, there was no special gear that you had to buy or grind for - your advantage came in how you chose your gear before a match.

 

We have that already here.  The nuances of sailing, the weather gage, positioning for advantage, shooting accurately and well, etc. make for heavy nuance that should carry forward nicely.

 

Agreed, I would just like to see creative ideas on it, not advocating for it 100%.

[SerrialKiller]

Buffs is fantasy did not have it in reall life better spyglass better equipment guns sails from cotton. Stuff like that it should be the player that sails no buffs that make it easier.

[Kunkka Dotason]

A BIG "NO" FOR BUFFS! pls do not make this game a new potbs.

what happens with games like potbs we all know. the become worser with every patch.

 

some guys make the proposal to add realistic things like morale - i can aggree with that - but pls dont make the difference to high.

let us take the example of nornica - low rum makes the sailors unhappy - this unhappyness should not make them 50% lesser effectively - maybe just 5-10%

maybe 10% is to extreme ^^.

 

i hope my weird english is reasonably understandable

[Balck]

A BIG "NO" FOR BUFFS! pls do not make this game a new potbs.

what happens with games like potbs we all know. the become worser with every patch.

 

some guys make the proposal to add realistic things like morale - i can aggree with that - but pls dont make the difference to high.

let us take the example of nornica - low rum makes the sailors unhappy - this unhappyness should not make them 50% lesser effectively - maybe just 5-10%

maybe 10% is to extreme ^^.

 

i hope my weird english is reasonably understandable

My thoughts exactly.

[admin]

You should not call them buffs per se. This term has negative connotations and we are not using it.

Admirals like Nelson or Generals like Patton, or Rommel were turning their soldiers into lions.

Suddenly previously poor divisions under a great commander were making military miracles. It is not magic and is not a buff. 

 

If you are an admiral with a high win rate, great rating from your nation's other player captains, and great leadership skills. Why can't you inspire your captains crews to reload better, turn yards faster or just be somehow more effective in realistic non magical areas?