Buffs?

[Flip]

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?

#SimFans.. careful =/

[admin]

#SimFans.. careful =/

what does it mean? please be more concise

[Flip]

what does it mean? please be more concise

 

It means the majority of forum users so far are simulator fans, meaning they want a pure and simple but elegant game that doesn't have magical skills or other factors. 

 

That and they dislike more arcade like gameplay such as POTBS due to free marks.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

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?

 

To be totally honest - you can.  I think the general hue and cry here is to not make it overpoweringly strong.  A 1%-3% enhancement to performance due to "good leadership" is one thing, and that's something I can agree with.  A huge bonus that means an unled group is going to have a huge disadvantage over an unled group (e.g. a led group means a nearly automatic win against an unled group) just leads to an "arms race" where you must have a leader to succeed.

[Lord Hood]

I personally enjoy leading group engagements, whether it be port battles for Britain in PotBS (an immense headache but can result in some real surprises - Do consult Flips youtube page to see) or other games like Arma et cetera. The concept of giving a bonus to Captains around me if I successfully lead et cetera sounds very good to me. It would give leaders a goal to achieve and also a reason to remain active. it's certainly an avenue that needs discussing.

[Edward Vernon]

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.

Yeah...I am a multi hundred dollar backer of Star Citizen and there are more than a few hardcore "crazies" wanting all kinds of crap for support of this that and the next thing and this, that or another planet, solar system universe or whatever and I hate to say it but they shout longest and loudest and it seems Chris Roberts is listening to them so a vocal minority are getting all kinds of promises which as far as I can see are just delaying the next level of the game's arrival to the detriment of those majority who just want to get on and play and you know what, it grieves me no end. But I have invested and so will stay for as long as it takes. As to the lack of complexity in combat...well back then there really wasn't any and yes the AI suck at some things and are well OP at others but try PvP when it comes back and isn't being abused by stats padders  and juveniles and come up against a fleet of decent players using TS and then you will almost certainly get the sort complexity (difficulty) you long for. But I am not sure what more complexity you want really because there just wasn't any. If you haven't done so read some Patrick O'Brien because his battle scenes are created from contemporary accounts and records of real events.....it just ain't that complex....

[Edward Vernon]

I personally enjoy leading group engagements, whether it be port battles for Britain in PotBS (an immense headache but can result in some real surprises - Do consult Flips youtube page to see) or other games like Arma et cetera. The concept of giving a bonus to Captains around me if I successfully lead et cetera sounds very good to me. It would give leaders a goal to achieve and also a reason to remain active. it's certainly an avenue that needs discussing.

Yes but the "boost" to captains that Nelson provided was because they trusted his plans, which were simple, clear and concise and he trusted his captains to do the right thing in situations as he had instructed them. He didn't give individuals within a certain range a 3% boost in any factor, he gave them confidence and leadership. This meant they did not dither or hesitate and made bold and decisive moves which threw the enemy. And the same is true today, I spent 5 years of my naval career teaching warfare to officers and the most important lesson I drummed into them was...make a decision, any decision and if it ain't right, make another and so on until you get the right one. The killer is inertia, once you lose momentum you lose the battle, because you will find that momentum almost impossible to regain. THAT is what Nelson drilled into his captains, THAT is why he was so successful.

[Lord Hood]

Officers under Nelson still dithered and hesitated. Look at all of his battles, Captains made the same errors and miscalculations as battles under St Vincent or Howe. Edward Berry for instance at Trafalgar had his warship firing at ineffective ranges and did not participate as intended. You could argue though that some Captains did have a boost when in range of the flagship. Eliab Harvey made the Temaraire famous for his exploits that were undertaken to save the flagship. Captains reacted differently under different Admirals so having some sort of incentive for people to become better Admirals is not completely out of the question in my opinion. If not a bonus of sorts then another suggestion could be made to act as that incentive. Most of my family are Royal Navy officers so I understand the reasons for successful commanders in "real life". Might I play the Devils advocate and state that this is a game and not real life so we don't necessarily have to be burdened by the same rules. I am not in favour of magical skills or buffs in most circumstances but I'm open to the debate.

[Nemesis]

Voted no and if there was a "hell no" option I'd vote that too.

 

Even playing the game in it's current state the battles can be intense which relying on the skill of the captain to overcome the enemy, adding these buffs basically dulls the game down from an active strategic game that makes you think to one were the most thinking you do is how to manage the icons on your HUD.

 

I agree with some of the a fore mention suggestions however like a fatigue system being put into place for the crew, while I like this idea it can also kill a game if done badly i.e. Navyfield 2: I was part of beta testing that game after waiting since 2008 for it's release only to find that after a few battles your crew's fatigue was through the floor causing numerous side effects which ruined game play (bad reload, terrible gunners spread, slower responding ship controls and damage repair rates), needless to say the game I mentioned has had to shut down it's servers.

 

I wouldn't mind the idea of an Admiral figure in the game which a player is randomly chosen to be said figure ONLY if he couldn't smash out "buffs" to boost game play and instead helped sustain the fatigue, moral or repair rate a little longer. If he happened to die in combat then the rates would return to vanilla settings end of (NO MAGIC).

 

On mentioning a moral system which would probably go hand in hand with a fatigue system or how the battle itself is unfolding, I think this could be another possibility though again as long as they don't over do it (again NO MAGIC).

 

Basically what I'm getting at is that if I wanted to play a game with buffs I'd go play WOW or POTBS, you have an opportunity here to pull of the production of an amazing game so please don't ruin it by turning it from a real time strategic game into something catered to 12 year old's with a buff infested user display that give severely unrealistic perks to a player, or next thing you know you'll be putting up an item mall where you can buy figure heads that turn your ship into a dolphin, titanium armor plating or a steam engine...

 

Ps: Please no premium ships that break the game either, honestly couldn't take another game going that way.

[Dagann]

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?

As long as the the bonus is linked to the morale, there is no problem.

We can imagine a crew galvanised by a skilled admiral, would reload faster or would make the ships more reponsive.

But bonus such as damage bonus are no way linked to the moral. Nelson would not make the cannonballs heavier or faster. This is what i call a magical buff.

[Edward Vernon]

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.

Just a technical point regarding your signature Sir, the RN (and you should REALLY always use the full Royal Navy) always comes immediately after your name and decorations follow. And if your character is pre- 1914 (which it should be for this game) then you couldn't possibly have been awarded the MC.

[Charles Caldwell]

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?

 

Well it depends on how fast (better).... single figure 'buff' could work, but we Jack becomes 25% faster than Henri because Nelson is on a ship his ship or nearby... then I'd call it magic!

[Edward Vernon]

Officers under Nelson still dithered and hesitated. Look at all of his battles, Captains made the same errors and miscalculations as battles under St Vincent or Howe. Edward Berry for instance at Trafalgar had his warship firing at ineffective ranges and did not participate as intended. You could argue though that some Captains did have a boost when in range of the flagship. Eliab Harvey made the Temaraire famous for his exploits that were undertaken to save the flagship. Captains reacted differently under different Admirals so having some sort of incentive for people to become better Admirals is not completely out of the question in my opinion. If not a bonus of sorts then another suggestion could be made to act as that incentive. Most of my family are Royal Navy officers so I understand the reasons for successful commanders in "real life". Might I play the Devils advocate and state that this is a game and not real life so we don't necessarily have to be burdened by the same rules. I am not in favour of magical skills or buffs in most circumstances but I'm open to the debate.

Totally agree it's a game and my thoughts are exactly as yours I think, anything that does not have a reasonable explanation should not be used and the amount of the influence it brings should not be "game-changing". So....no magical skills or buffs but influences from the game circumstance. So a player appointed automatically by the game or appointed by his fellows to be the "Admiral" for this battle, or the snior officer of the squadron on patrol will devolve a small amount of influence to his fellow captains according to his own ranking within the game. The influences could, IMO, be as much negative as positive.

[Sir. Cunningham]

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?

 

There are two Buffs that simply cannot be justified however:

 

Nomatter the General, be it Nelson, Napoleon or who'ever:

1. Cannon balls won't fly any faster out your guns (Kinetic energy & Penetration power)

2. Guns won't suddenly become inherently more accurate (Dispersion), and WE after all aim the guns ourselves

[admin]

hid some messages keep on topic please.. personal attack and dissuasions of IQ levels should be left to .. well there might be other forums for that

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

There are two Buffs that simply cannot be justified however:

 

Nomatter the General, be it Nelson, Napoleon or who'ever:

1. Cannon balls won't fly any faster out your guns (Kinetic energy & Penetration power)

2. Guns won't suddenly become inherently more accurate (Dispersion), and WE after all aim the guns ourselves

 

With regards to number 2.  Technically we direct the guns to fire in a general direction (see the "cone" of fire you're getting), but they are fired by individual gun crews, aiming on their own.  This means that crews that are motivated by a good leader might "get into the zone" and take that extra moment to aim the gun.  Good morale will make a crew work harder, faster, and better - this can explain number 2 perfectly well.

[Sir. Cunningham]

With regards to number 2.  Technically we direct the guns to fire in a general direction (see the "cone" of fire you're getting), but they are fired by individual gun crews, aiming on their own.  This means that crews that are motivated by a good leader might "get into the zone" and take that extra moment to aim the gun.  Good morale will make a crew work harder, faster, and better - this can explain number 2 perfectly well.

 

IMHO a higher reload rate is the only thing that can be justified seeing as it is one of the things we are not in command of ourselves.

[Lord Hood]

I think that Edward Vernon raises a good point with regards to both being positive and negative (also yes we are in agreement on the majority of things). So if you are with a good Admiral then perhaps there should be a raise in the sense of morale however should that Admiral also perish within the fight then there would have to be repercussions for that also. Buffs aside, should an Admiral perish in the fight will there then be an allocation of either a Vice or Rear Admiral to then take command of the engagement?

[Balck]

Just a technical point regarding your signature Sir, the RN (and you should REALLY always use the full Royal Navy) always comes immediately after your name and decorations follow. And if your character is pre- 1914 (which it should be for this game) then you couldn't possibly have been awarded the MC.

Duly noted but it's a different PotBS society, they changed the awards names after I joined and their signature requirements were very specific if not 100% historical.  Pretty much a copy paste.  

[Lord Hood]

The St. George Squadron of the White. Had a long and happy career there. Was the Chief of Naval Operations when I was with them.

[Balck]

Ah, I held the post myself for some months, then got burnt out.  Welcome aboard!  Trying to get more SGS to come over and taste what NA has to offer.  I'd wager the PVP contingent would love it 

 

By chance, what name did you go by then?

[Lord Hood]

My name in PotBS was Aaron Jones and I held the post for almost my entire duration in the society. I recall when you were there. I had that service tarnished when I left the society (no longer in game) and then was branded a xteamer by the current leader of the time (something I found rather offensive). Subsequently he has lost favour and I was re-invited after I was cleared of xteaming charges. 

 

I have been a tester for a while now and I would say that SGS would love it here. I doubt though that I would be accepted into the society over here though as I shan't part with the name Samuel Hood. As a relation of Lord Hood, this game is set at a perfect time for me and the name means a lot.

[Flip]

My name in PotBS was Aaron Jones and I held the post for almost my entire duration in the society. I recall when you were there. I had that service tarnished when I left the society (no longer in game) and then was branded a xteamer by the current leader of the time (something I found rather offensive). Subsequently he has lost favour and I was re-invited after I was cleared of xteaming charges. 

 

I have been a tester for a while now and I would say that SGS would love it here. I doubt though that I would be accepted into the society over here though as I shan't part with the name Samuel Hood. As a relation of Lord Hood, this game is set at a perfect time for me and the name means a lot.

 

Hi bby <<33333

[Balck]

My name in PotBS was Aaron Jones and I held the post for almost my entire duration in the society. I recall when you were there. I had that service tarnished when I left the society (no longer in game) and then was branded a xteamer by the current leader of the time (something I found rather offensive). Subsequently he has lost favour and I was re-invited after I was cleared of xteaming charges. 

 

I have been a tester for a while now and I would say that SGS would love it here. I doubt though that I would be accepted into the society over here though as I shan't part with the name Samuel Hood. As a relation of Lord Hood, this game is set at a perfect time for me and the name means a lot.

I do recall you sir.  Glad to see you here and look forward to when we first meet on the open seas, be it friend of foe (testing PVP being what it is besides a ton of fun!)  Flip knows you for sure

 

Anyway, sorry for the off-topic posts

[Lord Hood]

Flip is the ideal cameraman, I may have just got him killed once in a while. Became policy though to keep him alive for as long as possible! 

 

Good to see you too Flip.