What is: Naval Action? - A video guide.

[Flip]

Hey guys and gals,

 

I made a video describing what is in the game, what is planned for the game, including explorations, open sea mechanics etc, and what I think of the game and plans! 

 

This is the first time I've done serious voice work for a  video so give me a break! But that said any input is much appreciated!!

 

PS. The devs released more info right after the video came out! So check the forums!

 

PSS. Youtube made me use MPEG-4 due to a server issue in my area!

 

PSSS. EVERYTHING IN THE VIDEO MENTIONED IS ALPHA AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE

 

Enjoy! and feel free to share it to people asking about Naval Action!

 

                  https://www.y.outube.com/watch?v=QToheruywyI&list=UUF5_gKTILzIUoFquEnEFC8Q ( remove the dot to use in browser )

 

My channel full of POTBS stuff: https://www.youtube.com/user/FlipFlopsPOTBS/videos

[Balck]

Pretty nice summary, shared it with my old PotBS clan.  Hope some would come over. 

[Pixel]

Nice footage and interesting to hear your impressions Flip.

 

From the yet to be revealed open-world part of the game I'm hoping for lots of historical flavor.  I think you're right that an overly granular simulation can lead to game mechanics that either favor realism over gameplay or which are simply beyond the scope of what really needs to be modeled to achieve a believable game world.

 

One thing that currently sets Naval Action apart from other similar titles that I've seen is that it looks and feels like a real age of sail game with a focus on the ships as opposed to being being an overtly pirate themed project. Not that I have anything against pirates mind. Something more nuanced then the standard hollywood pirate approach would be a breath of fresh air though. 

[RAMJB]

I was mostly pleased with what I heard until the "it's a game" part popped up.

 

POTBS was also "a game". Go check how's doing. Lucky hits happened in real life and you're focusing on how unpleasing it is being in the receiving end. Not a single word however about what happens when it's you the one pulling the lucky shot. Goes both ways. And largely battle results will be decided by skill, not by luck. About "losing ships on a storm" If you don't have a clue on how to position your ship during a gale and you happen to go 100% sails while keeping 90º towards the incoming waves, you should lose your ship. It's that simple. And a long etcetera of things that make or break the immersion in a game like this. That "it is a game" doesn't mean they shouldn't be here.

That it's a game doesn't mean it has to be dumbed down just because the "casual" crowd would find it unsuitable. If anything, if the "casual" crowd stays out out this game, all the better for this game. NA its obvious to see was created with a clear view on creating a highly immersive, high quality, believable, immersive Age of Sail game. And such a game needs certain things. If you don't add them because maybe the WoT crowd finds them unpleasant you're doing a disservice to this game. Let the WoT crowd enjoy itself at WoT. Let us enjoy this.

"Casuals" have lots of other games to play not to need this one dumbed down to their liking. Those who want to finally see an immersive age of sail game don't. So let this game be what it's supposed to be.

[Balck]

I must admit, I did sorta cringe through some of the commentary towards the end but I chucked it up to being his opinion even if I disagreed with it.  

[Flip]

I was mostly pleased with what I heard until the "it's a game" part popped up.

 

POTBS was also "a game". Go check how's doing. Lucky hits happened in real life and you're focusing on how unpleasing it is being in the receiving end. Not a single word however about what happens when it's you the one pulling the lucky shot. Goes both ways. And largely battle results will be decided by skill, not by luck. About "losing ships on a storm" If you don't have a clue on how to position your ship during a gale and you happen to go 100% sails while keeping 90º towards the incoming waves, you should lose your ship. It's that simple. And a long etcetera of things that make or break the immersion in a game like this. That "it is a game" doesn't mean they shouldn't be here.

That it's a game doesn't mean it has to be dumbed down just because the "casual" crowd would find it unsuitable. If anything, if the "casual" crowd stays out out this game, all the better for this game. NA its obvious to see was created with a clear view on creating a highly immersive, high quality, believable, immersive Age of Sail game. And such a game needs certain things. If you don't add them because maybe the WoT crowd finds them unpleasant you're doing a disservice to this game. Let the WoT crowd enjoy itself at WoT. Let us enjoy this.

"Casuals" have lots of other games to play not to need this one dumbed down to their liking. Those who want to finally see an immersive age of sail game don't. So let this game be what it's supposed to be.

 

It is an opinion part of the video, deal with it, its not whats going to be in the game for sure, its just my opinion.

 

For the part where I mention lucky shots, I just feel they take away from skill on both ends, both giving and receiving, and while in theory they may sound good, I am sure a lot of the more casual crowd dislike it. I am from the camp of a bit more casual, a bit more new player friendly, with more people than these niche simulators we see a lot of (face it they dont have a lot of players). I feel this will be healthier for the population of the game, look at POTBS, it was a MMO, casual but complex to master with a steep learning curve, and even with good reviews just the fact that it was age of sail made it a niche game, so the more simulator NA is the more niche it will be resulting in less players if logic is to be followed.

 

Also, this is a MMO with an Open World, it needs a lot of people to be successful, not a niche of age of sail hardcore fans.

 

If you can't take someones opinion as opinion, you need to relax

[Flip]

I must admit, I did sorta cringe through some of the commentary towards the end but I chucked it up to being his opinion even if I disagreed with it.  

 

Thank you for understanding an opinion piece, not everyone agrees with everyone and I know the simulator fans hate me already but that's what forums are for, disagreements and discussion.

[RAMJB]

If you can't take someones opinion as opinion, you need to relax

 

And if you can't take someone adressing your opinions, and answering them, then you shouldn't voice those opinions then.

 

I mean, I am ok with you having whatever ideas you have about the game. But if I feel like disagreeing with them in public, after you voiced your opinion in public, the answer shouldn't come "those are my opinions, deal with it". I know those are your opinions. And I don't have to "deal" with anything, everyone has a formed idea of what they want in this game and that's perfectly fine.

 

But I shouldn't have that kind of answer when I'm just refuting your opinions with arguments. By any means I'm totally willing to enter a discusson or debate about our differences. But to do that first you have to bring some kind of argument on the table. not a "deal with it". That's not an argument. That's not grounds to start a discussion. That's just saying "I think what I think and I don't care about what you think because I want my way anyway".

And if that's your answer then I can also come here and say "well, those are your opinions, but this are mine. Deal with them yourself". And then we'd go nowhere. If you want a decent debate then start by not going those places. If you do then you simply don't want said debate to begin with. Or at least you show little willingness to enter one.

[Feriluce]

 About "losing ships on a storm" If you don't have a clue on how to position your ship during a gale and you happen to go 100% sails while keeping 90º towards the incoming waves, you should lose your ship. It's that simple. 

 

I actually think having to weather storms as well as battles in stormy weather could be one of the more fun things in the game. A full on storm is quite an epic setting for a battle, and having to struggle through it could be tense and fun. In AC4, for instance, sea battles in stormy weather always felt the most immersive.

[Flip]

And if you can't take someone adressing your opinions, and answering them, then you shouldn't voice those opinions then.

 

I mean, I am ok with you having whatever ideas you have about the game. But if I feel like disagreeing with them in public, after you voiced your opinion in public, the answer shouldn't come "those are my opinions, deal with it". I know those are your opinions. And I don't have to "deal" with anything, everyone has a formed idea of what they want in this game and that's perfectly fine.

 

But I shouldn't have that kind of answer when I'm just refuting your opinions with arguments. By any means I'm totally willing to enter a discusson or debate about our differences. But to do that first you have to bring some kind of argument on the table. not a "deal with it". That's not an argument. That's not grounds to start a discussion. That's just saying "I think what I think and I don't care about what you think because I want my way anyway".

And if that's your answer then I can also come here and say "well, those are your opinions, but this are mine. Deal with them yourself". And then we'd go nowhere. If you want a decent debate then start by not going those places. If you do then you simply don't want said debate to begin with. Or at least you show little willingness to enter one.

 

The argument comes from mechanics that may keep some people away from the game. The game is niche, its age of sail, and its open world meaning a lot of players are needed to make it feel alive with escort missions etc. Storms are fun, they are crazy, etc but unless the mechanic for sinking in one is well defined it will piss people off eventually. That is why I fear for full simulator, it scares people off while maintaining a hard core player base that is small. The game is already not a pure simulator so yea. Basically, I do not want to see arbitrary mechanics get in the way of good gameplay.

 

I am willing to enter discussions but when you make your opinion sound as if it is fact it deters one from trying as you will not see both sides of the argument.

[Edward Vernon]

The argument comes from mechanics that may keep some people away from the game. The game is niche, its age of sail, and its open world meaning a lot of players are needed to make it feel alive with escort missions etc. Storms are fun, they are crazy, etc but unless the mechanic for sinking in one is well defined it will piss people off eventually. That is why I fear for full simulator, it scares people off while maintaining a hard core player base that is small. The game is already not a pure simulator so yea. Basically, I do not want to see arbitrary mechanics get in the way of good gameplay.

 

I am willing to enter discussions but when you make your opinion sound as if it is fact it deters one from trying as you will not see both sides of the argument.

My friend...the very people you would wish to attract to this game by dumbing it down are the POTBS/WOT/WOW crowd who the majority of people here do NOT wish to see in this game. The stated aims of the devs are to keep away from the arcade element of WOT and POTBS and that is exactly why the majority of us are here. The arbitrary mechanics to which you refer occur in all the games I have played and errrrr. it's called reality, no-one hits the target everytime in real life and sometimes you get a lucky hit, think RNG dice rolls in WOT that determine whether you bounce or pen and then the amount of damage done, those exist here too and the lucky shot is one of them. It ADDS to gameplay IMO not detracts from it. Sinking in a storm well it's gonna happen, the mechanics don't matter unless you plan to bleat to the devs every time and try and argue you shouldn't have sunk that time....This will not be a full simulator and if you read the forums you will find many areas where it is accepted that reality has to be bent to balance gameplay with reality, but we are all trying hard to find just that, a balance to satisfy as many people as possible on both sides of the argument. So whilst the hardcore sim wannabees (and there are not that many) are making compromises, those of you at the arcade end of the spectrum must too. Yes your opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to it but so is everyone else and at the moment your opinion is a bit out of kilter with the majority of guys here.

 

'Nuff Said

 

I look forward to meeting you on the high seas......bring a lifejacket.... 

[RAMJB]

^^^^^what he said.

 

 

I'd add that the perception that "unless we attract casuals, there won't be enough players" doesn't hold any water whatsoever. I think there's plenty of players out there who are looking for something immersive, with a strong realistic flavor, and who loathe dumbed down mechanics. Aces High has been running for 15 years (And for the looks of it it has steam to keep on going for several years on), and it's niche and multiplayer. DCS World is doing really well, and it's niche and multiplayer. Not only that, it's actually expanding rapidly with steady release of new modules.

 

The market for niche thematics with high immersion exists. Sure, you won't get 3 million players playing this game. Then again, if 90% have the skillset, mindset, manners, and aittitudes that the average WoT player shows, I don't want them here anyway-. But you don't need millions to make a game succesful.

 

There's a market opportunity in this game. And a huge one. Naval simulators have been pretty rare since a good while ago, and a lot of people who want to play something with ships that is realistic enough don't have any game to fullfit that desire. Age of sail games have all been dumbed down to ridiculous levels in the past to cater for the "casuals". And have been pretty bad as a result, but there are quite a lot of age of sail fans out there that would give their right hand for a game like this (as long as you provide them with a hook to replace the lost hand ), as they've never had something like it. This would be a first.

 

POTBS grew to pretty big proportions in it's heyday. While most of that playerbase is not a target audience of a game like this (a good chunk of that playerbase wanted only to grind fleets and do dailies) a sensible proportion of it (those who played POTBS simply because it was that or nothing,but still loathed the magic skills, the flawed mechanics, the carebear nature, the power creep and the ultra-restricted PVP zones) will be satisfied by this game too.

 

 

TL:DR: To have a MMO you don't have to build World of Warcraft. You don't need dailies/dungeons. You don't need magic skills. You don't need dumbed down mechanics that a 2 year old would learn in a couple gaming sessions. There's a large audience that wants those things, fair enough. But there's also a sizeable target audience that nowadays lack a game like this, and that ammounts for enough players to make this game not only a success, but one that lasts for many years.

 

The moment you dumb down things to cater for WoT or WoW players, the moment you lose the interest of that target audience. Good luck holding the WoT or WoW players, btw. Those will leave this game very soon. Noone who has spent hundreds of dollars in WoW during the last 3 years is going to switch to other game anytime soon. Noone who has grinded a level 100 character in WoW will do it either. You dumb down things, you make this game POTBS2, and I repeat, we all know how POTBS fared in it's day, and what a corpse it is nowadays. Go the same route, you'll end exactly the same.

 

So no dumbed down gameplay. Sure, it's still a game and sure some concessions have to be made. But only if they don't break the immersion. The moment you go there, you cross a line that can't be ever crossed back. And what you end with is with a game that won't satisfize anyone. If you keep the standards and objective clearcut in immersion ,you'll have a succesful game with a good enough number of players. Again, won't be the millions of WoT, but will be more than enough to make Game Labs devs have a job for years and a lot of players to have a fantastic game to play in the meantime.

[Flip]

My friend...the very people you would wish to attract to this game by dumbing it down are the POTBS/WOT/WOW crowd who the majority of people here do NOT wish to see in this game. The stated aims of the devs are to keep away from the arcade element of WOT and POTBS and that is exactly why the majority of us are here. The arbitrary mechanics to which you refer occur in all the games I have played and errrrr. it's called reality, no-one hits the target everytime in real life and sometimes you get a lucky hit, think RNG dice rolls in WOT that determine whether you bounce or pen and then the amount of damage done, those exist here too and the lucky shot is one of them. It ADDS to gameplay IMO not detracts from it. Sinking in a storm well it's gonna happen, the mechanics don't matter unless you plan to bleat to the devs every time and try and argue you shouldn't have sunk that time....This will not be a full simulator and if you read the forums you will find many areas where it is accepted that reality has to be bent to balance gameplay with reality, but we are all trying hard to find just that, a balance to satisfy as many people as possible on both sides of the argument. So whilst the hardcore sim wannabees (and there are not that many) are making compromises, those of you at the arcade end of the spectrum must too. Yes your opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to it but so is everyone else and at the moment your opinion is a bit out of kilter with the majority of guys here.

 

'Nuff Said

 

I look forward to meeting you on the high seas......bring a lifejacket.... 

 

I do not want arcade, thats the thing, I want a healthy balance, being out of kilter with the majority here is not a bad thing despite you thinking it. If it breaks into your niche I am sorry, think of me as a devils advocate to what the vocal majority on the forums want. The thing is, the people you do not want to see in the game as you say will make up the majority of the population. If the game launches with the forum community or a small expansion of it only it won't last long, obviously this is a overstatement but it emphasizes my point on population.

[Flip]

^^^^^what he said.

 

 

I'd add that the perception that "unless we attract casuals, there won't be enough players" doesn't hold any water whatsoever. I think there's plenty of players out there who are looking for something immersive, with a strong realistic flavor, and who loathe dumbed down mechanics. Aces High has been running for 15 years (And for the looks of it it has steam to keep on going for several years on), and it's niche and multiplayer. DCS World is doing really well, and it's niche and multiplayer. Not only that, it's actually expanding rapidly with steady release of new modules.

 

The market for niche thematics with high immersion exists. Sure, you won't get 3 million players playing this game. Then again, if 90% have the skillset, mindset, manners, and aittitudes that the average WoT player shows, I don't want them here anyway-. But you don't need millions to make a game succesful.

 

There's a market opportunity in this game. And a huge one. Naval simulators have been pretty rare since a good while ago, and a lot of people who want to play something with ships that is realistic enough don't have any game to fullfit that desire. Age of sail games have all been dumbed down to ridiculous levels in the past to cater for the "casuals". And have been pretty bad as a result, but there are quite a lot of age of sail fans out there that would give their right hand for a game like this (as long as you provide them with a hook to replace the lost hand ), as they've never had something like it. This would be a first.

 

POTBS grew to pretty big proportions in it's heyday. While most of that playerbase is not a target audience of a game like this (a good chunk of that playerbase wanted only to grind fleets and do dailies) a sensible proportion of it (those who played POTBS simply because it was that or nothing,but still loathed the magic skills, the flawed mechanics, the carebear nature, the power creep and the ultra-restricted PVP zones) will be satisfied by this game too.

 

 

TL:DR: To have a MMO you don't have to build World of Warcraft. You don't need dailies/dungeons. You don't need magic skills. You don't need dumbed down mechanics that a 2 year old would learn in a couple gaming sessions. There's a large audience that wants those things, fair enough. But there's also a sizeable target audience that nowadays lack a game like this, and that ammounts for enough players to make this game not only a success, but one that lasts for many years.

 

The moment you dumb down things to cater for WoT or WoW players, the moment you lose the interest of that target audience. Good luck holding the WoT or WoW players, btw. Those will leave this game very soon. Noone who has spent hundreds of dollars in WoW during the last 3 years is going to switch to other game anytime soon. Noone who has grinded a level 100 character in WoW will do it either. You dumb down things, you make this game POTBS2, and I repeat, we all know how POTBS fared in it's day, and what a corpse it is nowadays. Go the same route, you'll end exactly the same.

 

So no dumbed down gameplay. Sure, it's still a game and sure some concessions have to be made. But only if they don't break the immersion. The moment you go there, you cross a line that can't be ever crossed back. And what you end with is with a game that won't satisfize anyone. If you keep the standards and objective clearcut in immersion ,you'll have a succesful game with a good enough number of players. Again, won't be the millions of WoT, but will be more than enough to make Game Labs devs have a job for years and a lot of players to have a fantastic game to play in the meantime.

 

DCS World : http://steamcharts.com/search?q=dcs+world - 140 people avg? Doing good?

 

You guys think I want POTBS2, and I dont. I want what you want, I just want people to consider different viewpoints and mechanics, there is no need to get uppity over someone with a different opinion to the majority. The thing is NA is dumbed down without you seeing it. The combat is aim and sail, so while it is technically more complex in for example sailing it is also in another way dumbed down in for example management, there is not timing of buffs, skills etc. See the different viewpoints possible when you step back? This is all I want to show.

 

Aces high is still going, yes, is it popular? no. The same can be said for thousands of games.

[RAMJB]

DCS World : http://steamcharts.com/search?q=dcs+world - 140 people avg? Doing good?

 

For a game that demands you to read (and mostly memorize) a 600 page manual to fly the A-10C, or a 150 one for the MiG-21 on a very high quality rig (lower end computers can't move DCS very well) with (At least) 200 bucks in hardware peripherals (Pedals, joystick, trackIR), I'd say 140 average people playing at the same time is a really good number. You don't go any further draconian in what regards to realism. You can't raise the bar beyond the level DCS imposes on the player. If there's an average 140 players at any given time playing DCS world with such extremely high standards, go figure the exponentially higher number for a game that doesn't demand anywhere close to that commitment in time, learning, and money, yet is immersive enough and refuses to be dumbed down.

 

Aces high is still going. I'd say it's pretty damned popular for what it is. In fact is as popular as it -needs- to be. Last time I checked in (August) there were 450 people online in the main arena, and my understanding is that at any given point you'll find between 250 and 500 players online. Which is more than enough to keep the game going, the developers working, the players happy, and the gameplay being quite good. Again Aces high pretty much demands from you a TrackIR setup and a joystick (tho this time pedals are not -that- neccessary) which involves around 100 bucks in hardware expenses. On top of 15$ per month, a monthly fee very few people nowadays wants to pay to play, which also explains why no more people play it (it also explains the pretty healthy, amiable, knowledgeable and mature community it has, as it keeps the legions of 12 year olds in FTP games)

 

 

I repeat, for Naval Action to be succesful it doesn't need to be "popular" if by popular you're tapping into the numbers some mass-played MMOs have. Besides, being a MMO with a sandbox doesn't demand hundreds of thousands of players. it all depends on the design. There weren't 50.000 ships sailing at the same time in the XVIII century anyway, so a number of average connected players in the 500 to 1000 would be already more than enough to make this game hugely enjoyable. POTBS did very well with pretty lower numbers in most of its servers for a quite long while. Just to name an instance.

 

I don't want this game to be #1 in the most popular MMO list. I want this game to be immersive, realistic, interesting, gripping, and to have a healthy mature community, which pretty much means I -don't- want it to be popular (because then the masses of 14 year olds will come infest the waters with their CoD attitude and mentality). I want it to be -succesful- and to be succesful it doesn't need to be in the same scale as WoW. Nor anywhere close to it.

[Flip]

For a game that demands you to read (and mostly memorize) a 600 page manual to fly the A-10C, or a 150 one for the MiG-21 on a very high quality rig (lower end computers can't move DCS very well) with (At least) 200 bucks in hardware peripherals (Pedals, joystick, trackIR), I'd say 140 average people playing at the same time is a really good number. You don't go any further draconian in what regards to realism. You can't raise the bar beyond the level DCS imposes on the player. If there's an average 140 players at any given time playing DCS world with such extremely high standards, go figure the exponentially higher number for a game that doesn't demand anywhere close to that commitment in time, learning, and money, yet is immersive enough and refuses to be dumbed down.

 

Aces high is still going. I'd say it's pretty damned popular for what it is. In fact is as popular as it -needs- to be. Last time I checked in (August) there were 450 people online in the main arena, and my understanding is that at any given point you'll find between 250 and 500 players online. Which is more than enough to keep the game going, the developers working, the players happy, and the gameplay being quite good. Again Aces high pretty much demands from you a TrackIR setup and a joystick (tho this time pedals are not -that- neccessary) which involves around 100 bucks in hardware expenses. On top of 15$ per month, a monthly fee very few people nowadays wants to pay to play, which also explains why no more people play it (it also explains the pretty healthy, amiable, knowledgeable and mature community it has, as it keeps the legions of 12 year olds in FTP games)

 

 

I repeat, for Naval Action to be succesful it doesn't need to be "popular" if by popular you're tapping into the numbers some mass-played MMOs have. Besides, being a MMO with a sandbox doesn't demand hundreds of thousands of players. it all depends on the design. There weren't 50.000 ships sailing at the same time in the XVIII century anyway, so a number of average connected players in the 500 to 1000 would be already more than enough to make this game hugely enjoyable. POTBS did very well with pretty lower numbers in most of its servers for a quite long while. Just to name an instance.

 

I don't want this game to be #1 in the most popular MMO list. I want this game to be immersive, realistic, interesting, gripping, and to have a healthy mature community, which pretty much means I -don't- want it to be popular (because then the masses of 14 year olds will come infest the waters with their CoD attitude and mentality). I want it to be -succesful- and to be succesful it doesn't need to be in the same scale as WoW. Nor anywhere close to it.

 

My friend plays DCS World a load and said he never read a manual, just an example. But basically you are comparing apples to oranges when you start bringing in numbers and stats pulled from anecdotal evidence from what is a hardcore simulator and what is a MMO and trying to compare player bases to player bases. In the end simulators have smaller player bases and this is not anecdotal evidence, but a fact.  Also, you cant exponentially extrapolate population due to less commitment AND across a completely different genre, again apples can not make oranges.

 

What it needs is variable depending on maintenance costs etc, do you want continued development? That means making money. Lets not pretend to know how many people they need to be financially viable but you get the idea.

 

500-1000 people global server? Europe? NA? Etc? Assuming it will have a NA, a EU, and RU server we then need 6000+ players, and 2000+ in each region at prime time, not to mention off times to make the game interesting. I believe many of the forum goers are european so you can see the concerns from a NA standpoint. Do you see the population issue from the perspective of a MMO now?

 

If this map is as big as they say, with Europe, the Carribean, etc etc then 500-1000 people might not do it. Add in 3-4 nations and you need more and more people. Soon a hardcore base of people won't work, when do you get bored of fighting the same people everyday - about 3 weeks from other game experience. The thing is we don't know how many people are needed. As you say there wasnt many ships sailing in XVIII but how many actual encounters were there? You are throwing examples of how historically accurate things DONT make good mechanics at me, thanks. Should we all split those few encounters? Do we each get 1 fight a week to be accurate? Again, we dont know what the devs are going to do with the open world and until we do this discussion is really a moot point.

[Magnet]

Playing DCS World and knowing how to play DCS World + Modules to their full extent are two different things. Knowing your business in DCS world either requires very good instruction, very good reading or both with a lot of practice.

That and a lot (I mean A LOT) of people don't use steam for DCS World and thus those numbers aren't a good representation of the actual amount of players.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to fill an open world sailing game with AI. In fact I'd prefer to have an open world multiplayer game with lots of AI plying the seas and a smattering of "hardcore" players than a game world full of casual arcaders.

Mag.

[Feriluce]

You also dont need a massive amount of players either. Just look at EVE. In its early years it didn't actually have very many players. I think it was probably topping out at around 10-15000 on at the same time. I'm not saying this game will get that many concurrent players, but considering how absolutely massive the world is in EVE, I'm not sure it needs it.

[Flip]

You also dont need a massive amount of players either. Just look at EVE. In its early years it didn't actually have very many players. I think it was probably topping out at around 10-15000 on at the same time. I'm not saying this game will get that many concurrent players, but considering how absolutely massive the world is in EVE, I'm not sure it needs it.

 

10,000 - 15,000, good sir, a lot of game dev's would kill for that many concurrent users!

 

to put it in perspective at any one time there are usually only 6-7 games on all of steam with that many concurrent users and they are big big big titles, DAYZ, CS, TF2 Skyrim etc, there are other platforms but it puts it in perspective.

[RAMJB]

My friend plays DCS World a load and said he never read a manual, just an example.

 

 

Your friend obviously has ample of previous flight sim experience then, and even then he won't be able to use an A-10C properly. But that's besides the point. The point is that even a brutally complicated, very niche, game has a cult following that makes it succesful and viable for many years to come. If DCS World is sucessful, viable, and profitable being what it is, Naval Action (which is by far less complicated) will also be able to without dumbed down mechanics.

 

 

The way NA is shaping up ping is relatively unimportant. Naval combat is pretty slow paced and a relatively high ping won't be a big issue. Specially so because the hideous "avatar" combat is not going to happen. I don't think we need separate EU/NA/SA servers, a global one will do perfectly. And again, we don't need a huge population. In fact a huge population would DETRACT from the game immersion.

 

Being a sandbox multiplayer online game with an open world doesn't mean you need players in the thousands. In fact the only reason I'd see for separate servers is if populations of more than 1500 players at the same time start happening. More than that would be overcrowding. The high seas of the era weren't full of dozens of thousands of ships at the same time. And shouldn't be here either. You mistake MMO for WoW. One doesn't neccessarily mean the other.

 

 

as for people who get bored after 3 weeks because "the map is too big, the population is not that big" - only people used to the "commonplace" MMOs will think that way. The reality of the day was that at a given moment there weren't 10.000 ships transiting the seas (plus NPCs), no matter "their map was big" ("their map" was the whole oceans of the whole world). For people who look for immersion an overcrowded game will feel much more wrong than a sparcely populated one as a result.

 

Now I don't say I want a game which is empty of players, but I think this is one of those (rare) games where the number of players you want per server is not neccessarily enormous. There should be enough people to make the game surprise you and stay on your toes, to give you enough action to stay entertained, but not as many as to make a simple trading run a nightmare where you're attacked five times by players because the seas are just overcrowded.

 

And if you find that kind of thing boring, there are lots of games that offer overcrowded servers. You don't need to stay here, nor anyone is forced to either. In any case, again, we don't need the masses here. There are enough players who look for immersion and don't have anywhere to find it in the gaming world who will happily come here to get it. This game doesn't need to be attractive for the Wot/WoW/Battlefied/CoD crowds. In fact, the more unnattractive is for them, -THE BETTER-

[Feriluce]

10,000 - 15,000, good sir, a lot of game dev's would kill for that many concurrent users!

 

to put it in perspective at any one time there are usually only 6-7 games on all of steam with that many concurrent users and they are big big big titles, DAYZ, CS, TF2 Skyrim etc, there are other platforms but it puts it in perspective.

 

I guess its not the best example. My point is also more that you dont necessarily need that many people in one spot for a game to feel populated. Considering the size of the eve universe, 10k isn't actually that many. 

[Flip]

I guess its not the best example. My point is also more that you dont necessarily need that many people in one spot for a game to feel populated. Considering the size of the eve universe, 10k isn't actually that many. 

 

Indeed but now they have 400k

[Feriluce]

Indeed but now they have 400k

 

Not at once. It is a testament to the fact that you dont necessarily need huge numbers to begin with in order to give a compelling experience.

[Edward Vernon]

I do not want arcade, thats the thing, I want a healthy balance, being out of kilter with the majority here is not a bad thing despite you thinking it. If it breaks into your niche I am sorry, think of me as a devils advocate to what the vocal majority on the forums want. The thing is, the people you do not want to see in the game as you say will make up the majority of the population. If the game launches with the forum community or a small expansion of it only it won't last long, obviously this is a overstatement but it emphasizes my point on population.

What a load of utter tosh.....

[Edward Vernon]

Your friend obviously has ample of previous flight sim experience then, and even then he won't be able to use an A-10C properly. But that's besides the point. The point is that even a brutally complicated, very niche, game has a cult following that makes it succesful and viable for many years to come. If DCS World is sucessful, viable, and profitable being what it is, Naval Action (which is by far less complicated) will also be able to without dumbed down mechanics.

 

 

The way NA is shaping up ping is relatively unimportant. Naval combat is pretty slow paced and a relatively high ping won't be a big issue. Specially so because the hideous "avatar" combat is not going to happen. I don't think we need separate EU/NA/SA servers, a global one will do perfectly. And again, we don't need a huge population. In fact a huge population would DETRACT from the game immersion.

 

Being a sandbox multiplayer online game with an open world doesn't mean you need players in the thousands. In fact the only reason I'd see for separate servers is if populations of more than 1500 players at the same time start happening. More than that would be overcrowding. The high seas of the era weren't full of dozens of thousands of ships at the same time. And shouldn't be here either. You mistake MMO for WoW. One doesn't neccessarily mean the other.

 

 

as for people who get bored after 3 weeks because "the map is too big, the population is not that big" - only people used to the "commonplace" MMOs will think that way. The reality of the day was that at a given moment there weren't 10.000 ships transiting the seas (plus NPCs), no matter "their map was big" ("their map" was the whole oceans of the whole world). For people who look for immersion an overcrowded game will feel much more wrong than a sparcely populated one as a result.

 

Now I don't say I want a game which is empty of players, but I think this is one of those (rare) games where the number of players you want per server is not neccessarily enormous. There should be enough people to make the game surprise you and stay on your toes, to give you enough action to stay entertained, but not as many as to make a simple trading run a nightmare where you're attacked five times by players because the seas are just overcrowded.

 

And if you find that kind of thing boring, there are lots of games that offer overcrowded servers. You don't need to stay here, nor anyone is forced to either. In any case, again, we don't need the masses here. There are enough players who look for immersion and don't have anywhere to find it in the gaming world who will happily come here to get it. This game doesn't need to be attractive for the Wot/WoW/Battlefied/CoD crowds. In fact, the more unnattractive is for them, -THE BETTER-

You may be playing devils advocate, or you may not, I don't know but you argue pretty strongly and passionately for a devils advocate. Frankly you are entitled to your opinion and as I said before you are well out of line with the majority of people here and are making assumptions about the open world sandbox that we haven't seen yet. However the game and players you describe are not what I hope or want here..... I am just gonig to ignore you now because you are starting to bore me and arguing back is tedious when you just keep repeating yourself...... enjoy whatever NA turns out to be.. and once again I say, look forward to meeting on the high Seas, please ensure you bring a lifejacket...