Single Player and PvE Discussion, 2013 - 2015

[Verhoeven]

Your kidding me right... 60 percent of Total War is strategy and empire management....

 

I hardly played the campaign of TW either. Just the battles. If you don´t play the campaign and just do the battles. it´s 100% battles. Both CoH and C&C have a campaign too (which are for sure 100% battles only). After you have finished them most will not replay it, and go for custom battles or multiplayer.

Anyway, it´s not quite relevant if you get the context of my point.

[Marquiz]

Single player has no point of interest too me. Tactical and strategy games are only good if human opponet is on opposite side. I dont like fast rts like CoH which is very good game, but playing with other player is moslty arcade cliking to good mavouver oppoents units.

[CJFlint]

I hardly played the campaign of TW either. Just the battles. If you don´t play the campaign and just do the battles. it´s 100% battles. Both CoH and C&C have a campaign too (which are for sure 100% battles only). After you have finished them most will not replay it, and go for custom battles or multiplayer.

Anyway, it´s not quite relevant if you get the context of my point.

LOL Does not mean everyone else does not. Speak for your selves. I played campaign mode and use the quick battles more as a learning tool.  Total War Rome 2 the Campaign map is going to play a huge role in the game. If that's all you do tin any of TW games is play the quick battles then your missing a huge amount of the game. 

[Digby]

CJFlint - well obviously people will speak for themselves. If we all state our preferences and the devs take note of all that is said they'll see an average trend of what the average player wants and can game design accordingly. But there is in this community already a significant presence of wargamer type players who only want a naval battle game or simulator, with no MMO or open world campaign at all. Fortunately the devs have already said that a separate combat game will be provided with presumably customisable fleets and sides for either faction v faction play or privately arranged games with some kind of scenario generator tool.

 

So yes, everyone should state his or her preference! That's the whole point.

 

Verhoven isn't missing any of the value of a TW game as far as he's concerned because the campaign simply doesn't interest him - only the battles do. Everyone's different to everyone else, which brings me back to my point that rather than being critical of other's preferences, you should announce your own to the devs so they can take note.

[admin]

There is no reason to fight as there are almost 7 bln opinions on earth.

 

When I worked at Wargaming we met with SEGA. And one topic was Total War. 

Huge numbers of Total War players play only because of global map (castles) and use only auto-resolve (at endgame this number is more than 50%).

 

. Fortunately the devs have already said that a separate combat game will be provided with presumably customisable fleets and sides for either faction v faction play or privately arranged games with some kind of scenario generator tool.

 

Just to make sure: we never said that in such detail

Customization of fleets (in our game 1 player = 1 ship) or scenario generation tools are not in the current plans. Also a player to join the organised battle will still have to actually level up the crew and his rank to be able to sail the ship he wants. You wont be able to sail the first rate from Day 1. 

 

To recap a Single Player discussion so far - Multiplayer combat is a current priority.

[FLGibsonJr]

I guess I and others were under the same understanding that Digby expressed, and I have to say that I am greatly disappointed, but not surprised. It appears this game will be a "grinder" (ie World of Tanks, etc) and of course the developers have every right to choose their method of gameplay. The only thing I would like to say to the developers, is that I realize that there are many people who are interested in "grinder" games, though I personally have zero interest in them, but since they are putting so much work into a naval age of sail game I think there is a substantial market that will be missed by only going in that direction. Many of us would be willing to pay top dollar for a stand alone game that would offer realistic age of sail naval battle that is controlled by the players. For us, I think a Rise of Flight pay model for gameplay would be much preferable to a World of Tanks model, the RoF model can deliver realistic combat that remains interesting for years, whereas the WoT model ends up being unrealistic and in the long run boring, at least for a lot of us.

Best Regards,

Gibson

[Verhoeven]

Mmm...so I understand that it will not be possible to set up a game yourself with the settings you like? Like the ships available or crews available? You can only obtain certain ships after 'grinding'....

 

That is dissapointing indeed. Even in Total War multiplayer you can set up the game you want with the units you like (based on money, but host decides the amount). In CoH you can set up the games you like. Conditions depending on the host of the game. Actually in most RTS games you can set up the game you like. Rankings are only for automatching and to get an idea who you are going to fight. 

Personally, if this is going to be a 'grinding' game, where the player who puts most time into it gets the crews and ships, than this is sadly not the game for me. It will be another World of Warships, but in a different era. Shame, I was under the impression, based on previous information here, that we would have the freedom of creating our own games. My hopes that this could be the one, 12 years after AoSII, just faded away.

 

Best regards and good luck with the development.

 

S!

Verhoeven

[Flip]

I hardly played the campaign of TW either. Just the battles. If you don´t play the campaign and just do the battles. it´s 100% battles. Both CoH and C&C have a campaign too (which are for sure 100% battles only). After you have finished them most will not replay it, and go for custom battles or multiplayer.

 

 

Your still missing the point of TW games, the campaign is replayable due to different nations....

[Blackie]

I was also involved in AOS II and agree with Verhoeven.  I hope that the developers will reconsider their decision not to include a quick battle/scenario generator.  This would not only satisfy the desire for many to be able to recreate many of the battles from history, but also provide the means for people to sharpen their skills and train either as single players or factions in order to prepare for the other modes of playing. 

[admin]

We understand your concerns guys. But we see this subject differently: Player will have to earn the right to sail a first rate, getting appropriate rank, number of victories, and prize money. 

We are not aware of any real life example when a 100 gun ship was given to a captain with no combat experience and appropriate rank.

[Marquiz]

 

We understand your concerns guys. But we see this subject differently: Player will have to earn the right to sail a first rate, getting appropriate rank, number of victories, and prize money. 

We are not aware of any real life example when a 100 gun ship was given to a captain with no combat experience and appropriate rank.

i understand yours logic, and agree with that.As i mensioned eariler iam mainly interest this game becouse of age of sail mmo with open world, but if these features will came in future i be happy might play "grinder mulityplayer" for a while.

 

 

I think a Rise of Flight pay model for gameplay would be much preferable to a World of Tanks model, the RoF model can deliver realistic combat that remains interesting for years, whereas the WoT model ends up being unrealistic and in the long run boring, at least for a lot of us.

Good you said "at least for lot of us". WoT has enormous market sucess, and for me it have quite realistic model of fight, not being simulator. Simulator games are ok, but have very narrow group of fans and this might be problem for new developer without big cash for development game in few years time. I think "grinder" model is far more open and might merge with F2P payments easily.

[FLGibsonJr]

I did want to be specific by saying "at least for a lot of us" because I do realize that there are different customer bases. What the ideal would be is to have all three versions, a fairly realistic stand alone naval game for the naval enthusiasts (ie Age of Sail II), a grinder version for those who like grinding (ie World of Tanks), and an MMO version for those who like to craft and play within a created world (Ie Pirates of the Burning Sea).

I think they could get to market quickest by starting with a stand alone naval game that would draw the naval enthusiasts, with a pay model like Rise of Flight, that would create an early income stream. Then while that income stream is continuing, and having built a naval enthusiast community, use the work that was done for the initial game for creating the grinder game, and then eventually the MMO game, each of those being increasingly difficult to produce. That way you would eventually have three independent streams of income, all supported by the same base of work.

Regards,

Gibson

[CJFlint]

CJFlint - well obviously people will speak for themselves. If we all state our preferences and the devs take note of all that is said they'll see an average trend of what the average player wants and can game design accordingly. But there is in this community already a significant presence of wargamer type players who only want a naval battle game or simulator, with no MMO or open world campaign at all. Fortunately the devs have already said that a separate combat game will be provided with presumably customisable fleets and sides for either faction v faction play or privately arranged games with some kind of scenario generator tool.

 

So yes, everyone should state his or her preference! That's the whole point.

 

Verhoven isn't missing any of the value of a TW game as far as he's concerned because the campaign simply doesn't interest him - only the battles do. Everyone's different to everyone else, which brings me back to my point that rather than being critical of other's preferences, you should announce your own to the devs so they can take note.

 

 

Relax! The reality is if you played any of the TW series games and you have not played campaign then you have not seen the whole game. The developers of TW build the game around campaign, its a huge part of that game series. Its a fact. As far as his preference I don't care, if he just likes the battles that's fine. I'm stating a valid point here.

[admin]

Organized battles in equal conditions have been a priority. Without great and interesting ship to ship action any open world will be useless.

 

Just a reminder.

I guess you are all questioning what you can take to those battles. 

[Verhoeven]

We understand your concerns guys. But we see this subject differently: Player will have to earn the right to sail a first rate, getting appropriate rank, number of victories, and prize money. 

We are not aware of any real life example when a 100 gun ship was given to a captain with no combat experience and appropriate rank.

 

Well in real life (!) anybody who lacked appropriate rank was not given a ship.... 

but in online games you can pretend you are an airoplane pilot, even without a real life PPL certification 

 

The thing is that this set up dictates that you have to spend time (and money?) in the game before you can play certain ships. So no freedom in that. In multiplayer (stand alone battle) it does make setting up your own games with the conditions you want impossible. For me grinding says nothing about skill. And there are grinding games where I just bought the stuff instead of the time spending on it. 

 

So what happens after we all grinded our way to the first rates and what ever there is to make you feel something? super first rates? ironclads? For the open world it's fine, but will it be possible to set up the battle of your liking with your friends only? If that is the case, it will be just grinding for a week or two (or just use the credit card?) and than just host my own battles....

 

Final question: Will it be possible to host your own game? Or use a dedicated server to host the game?... I fear it will run on centralized servers with preset conditions and that keep track of everything.

 

Anyway. Some will like the current direction but I am sure many of the AoS buffs won't. This is not going to be my type of game. 

 

S!

 

PS: I have played TW campaigns ofcourse. Hardly finished them. It is personal. I think you can't judge me if I say I only love the battles in TW and not the campaign. And online you will be playing battles.... now and than I still fire up a TW game. Just a game against ai for 30 minutes or so. 

[CJFlint]

One thing that kept me playing POTBS even though it was flawed, is the fact pvp was pretty flexible and the game its self was flexible. If you were in to conquest you could get into RvR. If you wanted to 1v1 or solo in the red zones you were free to do that. If you wanted to be a no good ganking pirate gang up on people and rage board the you could. If you prefer just to have a pre arranged fight were you loss nothing if you loss, there was skirmishs. This is probably why POTBS survived as long as it has is because of the game play freedom. I think most former potbs could agree to that. If there's any thing to learn that they did right from POTBS ups and downs, it is that.

 

I think we should have it all. Open sea free pvp, conquest if you like, if want a prearranged fight there should be servers for that.......Freedom. It should be a flexible game.

[admin]

1) The thing is that this set up dictates that you have to spend time (and money?) in the game before you can play certain ships. So no freedom in that. In multiplayer (stand alone battle) it does make setting up your own games with the conditions you want impossible. For me grinding says nothing about skill. And there are grinding games where I just bought the stuff instead of the time spending on it. 

 

2) So what happens after we all grinded our way to the first rates and what ever there is to make you feel something? super first rates? ironclads? For the open world it's fine, but will it be possible to set up the battle of your liking with your friends only? If that is the case, it will be just grinding for a week or two (or just use the credit card?) and than just host my own battles....

 

3) Final question: Will it be possible to host your own game? Or use a dedicated server to host the game?... I fear it will run on centralized servers with preset conditions and that keep track of everything.

 

 

 

Easy questions first 

1) We don't call it grinding (grinding sounds negative). For us it is more earning the right to get a new ship, which is not unrealistic at all in our Age of sail setting. And yes it does not say anything about skill, which you can judge from player performance information. We need this feature because we want it ourselves and it works very well in many successful games. Why should we let someone who just came into the game sail Santissima Trinidad?

 

2) There will be no ironclads. You will be able to fight against your friends any time using the ships you have bought or unlocked. Also we are sure that you will like our faction warfare more than those personal battles.

 

Now complicated questions.

 

3) We use authoritative server architecture. Everything in game is calculated and done on the servers. The only reason for that is cheaters and hacks. On the authoritative server hacks are impossible - you cannot get wave heights, cannonballs, ship positions from the client even if you hack it. Faction warfare will be instanced you can create an instanced battle for your squadron and fight without outsiders if you want. But again - we can assure you that sinking random skilled and unskilled captains in a experienced squadron is much more fun - and battle is just one click away.

[Digby]

We understand your concerns guys. But we see this subject differently: Player will have to earn the right to sail a first rate, getting appropriate rank, number of victories, and prize money. 

We are not aware of any real life example when a 100 gun ship was given to a captain with no combat experience and appropriate rank.

Sorry, that game is absolutely not for me. Its grinding and its World of Tanks. You just lost another customer.

 

Now I understand why you are not interested in a realistic combat model and damage model, because you have no intention of making a realistic game.

 

If your combat model was realistic and would just allow a battle creation game in the exact same way Total War does with a lobby front end only with a choice of ships and map and a group of players can recreate a hstorical encounter you would get a LOT of support for YEARS from the Sea Lords group. We've been waiting 12+ years for a successor to Akella's Age of Sail II and we hoped this was it. Sadly, it seems that's not the case.

 

You guys just dropped the ball in a big way with that decision.

 

EDIT: I have a feeling there is a disconnect here and we are not understanding each other. At least I hope so. I don't understand your thinking when you ask us "Why should a captain command a 1st rate straight away?" Our answer is "We are not playing a captain who commands a 1st rate straight away. We're not playing ANYONE specific. We are not in a competitive ship advancement model of a game at all."

 

For the alternative type of game we would like to pay look at your own forums where Darth Vader of TW mod fame is making a scenario-based and historic battle driven RTS of Gettysburg. That's the exact game model we are talking about, where a community of players gather together, agree a date and time to meet, choose a scenario (say Battle of the Nile 1798), each picks a ship and we refight a historical real battle. Its wargaming using model ships (or tanks, or soldiers) on a table top with dice and paper rules but converted to a computer online. That is all it is. Its simple and fun and we enjoy it. The ships we fight with one day are not "earned" and we don't keep them. I could play a Spanish frigate one day and a French 74 the next and a British 64 the next. The ships aren't mine.

 

Are you understanding that kind of game? I ask, in all seriousness, because I am not even sure you are.

[Adair]

For my part, I'm not taking my toys and going home just yet, but I did want to address a couple of things:

 

"1) We don't call it grinding (grinding sounds negative). For us it is more earning the right to get a new ship, which is not unrealistic at all in our Age of sail setting."

 

You can call it anything you want, but, if I'm going to need to put in a few weeks of gameplay before I can sail everything on the sea, then there's grinding involved, whether that be sinking X number of NPCs or playing in X number of pvp matches. It's still a grind.

 

"We need this feature because we want it ourselves and it works very well in many successful games." 

 

The best argument I've heard so far is: 'because we want it that way.' Fair enough. It's your game. That said, you're right that this has been used in many games so far. Please note: MANY games so far. What makes yours different? Why am I here instead of POTBS? That's the important question. 

 

"Why should we let someone who just came into the game sail Santissima Trinidad?"

 

Answer: Because they want to. What do you lose by letting them have access to everything immediately? And, here's the funny part: players would very quickly discover that a First Rate isn't the best ship for anything but a blockade or a battle. They're too slow to catch anything, plain and simple. They're useful for area denial and sinking other first rates. That's pretty much it.

 

Again, I'm going to point to Planetside as having one of the best models for 'level advancement' out there, especially for a pvp-centric game. A brand new player can do anything, but they can only do one thing. They can drive a tank OR fly a plane OR play a sniper OR play heavy infantry OR be an engineer, etc... As you level up, those OR's turn into AND's. I can drive a tank AND fly a plane AND play a sniper...  Does that make sense?

[FLGibsonJr]

EDIT: I have a feeling there is a disconnect here and we are not understanding each other. At least I hope so. I don't understand your thinking when you ask us "Why should a captain command a 1st rate straight away?" Our answer is "We are not playing a captain who commands a 1st rate straight away. We're not playing ANYONE specific. We are not in a competitive ship advancement model of a game at all."

 

 

I think what Digby is saying in this quote is how many of us feel.  And to illustrate better it may help to reference other games like Rise of Flight, IL-2 or even going back to Red Baron 3D.  In these games there are and were probably hundreds of independent squadons if not more.  There are some events where one squadron will challenge another squadron with everyone flying equal DR-1's, or one side flying DR-1's and another side Camel's,or whatever was determined by the squadrons.  Other times there are large tournaments where certain rules are followed and certain planes were used with determined objectives.  Often parameters are very carefully determined so no one side would have any advantage over another, or there would be a trade off of advantages, so that skill and organization were what determined victory, not a maxed out aeroplane.

 

Many of us see this type of activity as the pinnacle of PC gaming and were hoping this game could provide that for the Age of Sail era when it came to naval battles.  In some of the Admin statements it seems like there might be a possibility that this game will deliver this, with other statements it seems like it will not deliver this.  Many of us consider the World of Tanks model as not delivering this, and the Rise of Flight/IL-2 model as delivering this, these all being games that are mentioned on your website.  I guess the easiest way to clear things up would be what type of model are you following WoT or RoF/IL-2?

 

Thanks very much and best regards,

 

Gibson

[Kala4]

For my part, I'm not taking my toys and going home just yet, but I did want to address a couple of things:

 

"1) We don't call it grinding (grinding sounds negative). For us it is more earning the right to get a new ship, which is not unrealistic at all in our Age of sail setting."

 

You can call it anything you want, but, if I'm going to need to put in a few weeks of gameplay before I can sail everything on the sea, then there's grinding involved, whether that be sinking X number of NPCs or playing in X number of pvp matches. It's still a grind.

 

"We need this feature because we want it ourselves and it works very well in many successful games." 

 

The best argument I've heard so far is: 'because we want it that way.' Fair enough. It's your game. That said, you're right that this has been used in many games so far. Please note: MANY games so far. What makes yours different? Why am I here instead of POTBS? That's the important question. 

 

"Why should we let someone who just came into the game sail Santissima Trinidad?"

 

Answer: Because they want to. What do you lose by letting them have access to everything immediately? And, here's the funny part: players would very quickly discover that a First Rate isn't the best ship for anything but a blockade or a battle. They're too slow to catch anything, plain and simple. They're useful for area denial and sinking other first rates. That's pretty much it.

 

Again, I'm going to point to Planetside as having one of the best models for 'level advancement' out there, especially for a pvp-centric game. A brand new player can do anything, but they can only do one thing. They can drive a tank OR fly a plane OR play a sniper OR play heavy infantry OR be an engineer, etc... As you level up, those OR's turn into AND's. I can drive a tank AND fly a plane AND play a sniper...  Does that make sense?

 

 

if you want smth that is not planned in this game - maybe you should look for another? or make your own game?)

[Ink]

I don't see a reason why there should be restrictions in the skirmish mode from the start...It's just skirmish, you don't have anything, you just loan a ship for the battle, while in rough seas you have your own ship, you can hunt, escort etc...There is a sandbox driven by coalitions of clans, dramatic battles for resources, tons of gold thrown away after the big battle, politics, crafting etc. By this way the game will suit almost everyone...sigh

[FLGibsonJr]

if you want smth that is not planned in this game - maybe you should look for another? or make you own game?)

 

Kala4,

 

I think part of it is we are trying to actually figure out what is planned by the developers, and secondly we are offerring our opinions and feedback to the developers to improve game play, at least from our individual perspectives.

 

Regards,

[Ink]

probably, you can add ladders, ratings, tournaments etc. to skirmish, but make some restrictions so if a person wants to join he has to unlock it in the way you want to unlock ships now

[admin]

 

Now I understand why you are not interested in a realistic combat model and damage model, because you have no intention of making a realistic game.

 

 

We don't like when such things happen. There is no proof for such statements with strange reasoning on the forums or on the website.