Please, Devs Listen To This, Your Success Depends On It

[Kmdr 1.GR Holm]

Dear Developers,

 

One of the great mistakes of many games as they grow from alpha to beta to full release is the simple of beauty, of well, simplicity. Yes, the game may be stark and rustic with a gigantic hour glass on the loading screen and the stark lobby, but please, I beseech you all, do not lose the things that make this game great at the beta stage.

 

So many games try to prolong the life by making progression longer, they try to change the way we play mid game release, realize it was horrible, but are too arrogant to see they made a mistake and change it, *cough* War Thunder. The wonderful way people feel accomplishment from finally getting 30.000 damage and getting that Snow without having to pay for it with in-game money or some other form of research. 

 

In some ways the stark and bleak manner of the lobby without all the lackluster makes it easier to access and figure out. Yes, maybe a tutorial would be nice, but just simply jumping into a game via one click, notifying people via the Global Chat that a game is starting is just amazing no matter how primitive the stage of the game.

 

I can't give too many specific examples, but if any of you guys out there have played games from their beginning to the later release stages, you will know what I speak of. It just simply isn't the same when the devs try to add content or pizzaz or lackluster, instead of fluidity of gameplay, balancing, model fixes, and bug fixing.

 

So, inconclusion, what I really want to leave you developers with, is that never be too arrogant to admit your mistakes and revert to the old ways, never stop fixing technical issues and start thinking that shoving content down our mouths will satisfy us, and finally just remember the old ways, the ways that made us, the beginning followers fall in love with you game.

 

 -Vizeadmiral Isaak der große des Shiffes "Frederick II"

[Flip]

Sounds like a love novel.

 

Kidding aside the dev's are pretty open with their plans/goals and ask for a lot of feedback. So far so good 

[Pheasent Plucker]

i agree about the raw feel of it and i love it, i dont need no glitzy battle now botton or moving back ground or intro video, gimmie gameplay plz.

 

ive played battlefileds/AA/voyage century/WoT/warthunder/WoW just to name a few (ther is more lol)so ive seen the rise and fall of many,

 

and agree with viceadmiral about the mid game grind, making it impossible to get final stages of game unless your quit your job and change your seat to a toilet in an attempt to prolong player satisfaction.

 

but hey Devs remenber this and keep at it:

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

[Destraex]

I know what you speak of. I have been in many Alphas. The latest to fail in this way was a series of games. The War series. They started with a great idea to have historical knights from a particular period fighting each other. In alpha and beta the mechanics were great and leant themselves to how things really were. However because knights armour was realistic and a good player in this nigh unbeatable, instead of changing the game modes to suit by limiting the number of knights in a match (as was historical in battle) they nerfed the knights armour so that instead of aiming for weak spots people could not just lightly swing everywhere to cause damage. It brought some players into the game but mainly lost its hard core appeal for the better players and simply became a gank fest by the poorer quality players as the good ones left. The game was a success and is still fun however that appeal was lost and prevented it from reaching it's potential. That game was called war of the roses.

Since the game was successful they created a sequel call War of the Vikings which although innovative went even further into the realms of gaminess and that game failed and people who pre-ordered got compensated in steam games by paradox. My point is that unless you start a game with the intent of it being an arcade game for scrubs you should not lower it to that level in a greedy attempt to gain more playerbase. 

 

I don't want unlocks that a real captain would never use. Things like 1% faster fire stats. I want to be able to drill or experience a crew to that level... i.e. a proper game mechanic. But perhaps you are right. At the moment it is the human player that has the experience. It is simple and everybody knows they have a chance by ship type without going up against the guy that has grinded in an open private sea for 700hrs.

 

What I want is game mechanics which are things to do that keep things interesting and teach people about the age of sail and what things were like. Game mechanics that inspire people and get people talking about how amazing the game is. I want to be able to set stunsails and storm canvas among other things. I want to choose my sail plan and crew ratio. 

 

I am afraid I want some glitz. But it has to be high quality glitz tied to mechanics and meaningful presentation not simple stats crap. I want a game landing page when I load that shows my ships docked and allows me to walk to each and inspect them before taking them out.

[Ligatorswe]

Yes. A dock is needed! :-) And some personalization of the ship. Add your own flags and colours and such.

Agree with the above mentioned. With the exception that one way or the other we have to make it possible for all players to reach end content, i.e. Santissima. If we want a game that has players and that has financial recources and can continue to live, we need PLAYERS. Few players are willing to play a game where they cant reach end content. 

That is why the solution for the knight-game mentioned above is NOT to limit the knight class. The solution is not to water the game down to arcade and it is NOT to make it impossible for the majority of the players to reach end content.

There is an easy way to solve it. By shaping the gameplay so that you BOTH can sail santissima as a medium good player or even BAD player, and so that there are elements in the gameplay that only lets the good players sail the BIG ships or become admirals in the large battles. 

To compare with knights. All has to be able to grind to get the chance to be a knight. But there should be gameplay were less good players dont get the chance to be knights.

[Crankey]

As long as P2W (Pay to Win) isn't added I am confident the Devs will do a great job at release. As Flip says above, the Devs have always been open about content and looking for suggestions and improvements as it develops.

 

I personally think that sprucing up the plain lobby area adding content etc eventually will occurr and should do. Why have a beautiful game and a lack lustre menu system.

[Destraex]

Yes. A dock is needed! :-) And some personalization of the ship. Add your own flags and colours and such.

Agree with the above mentioned. With the exception that one way or the other we have to make it possible for all players to reach end content, i.e. Santissima. If we want a game that has players and that has financial recources and can continue to live, we need PLAYERS. Few players are willing to play a game where they cant reach end content. 

That is why the solution for the knight-game mentioned above is NOT to limit the knight class. The solution is not to water the game down to arcade and it is NOT to make it impossible for the majority of the players to reach end content.

There is an easy way to solve it. By shaping the gameplay so that you BOTH can sail santissima as a medium good player or even BAD player, and so that there are elements in the gameplay that only lets the good players sail the BIG ships or become admirals in the large battles. 

To compare with knights. All has to be able to grind to get the chance to be a knight. But there should be gameplay were less good players dont get the chance to be knights.

i meant as system like red orchestra 2 has. Any person who owns a knight can take the slot for that battle and use it. If it is not taken. That would have worked for war of the roses and they could havee kept the knight realstic.... Inclusive of its rare occurane on the field of battle.

[Black Dynamite]

As long as P2W (Pay to Win) isn't added I am confident the Devs will do a great job at release. As Flip says above, the Devs have always been open about content and looking for suggestions and improvements as it develops.

 

I personally think that sprucing up the plain lobby area adding content etc eventually will occurr and should do. Why have a beautiful game and a lack lustre menu system.

 

I'm pretty sure that this game will not be free to play so it wont be pay to win. Also I do agree with sprucing up the menu's and stuff. I'm positive they don't plan to keep it the way it is lol.

[Tagera]

I agree with Destraex on that one. Having everyone in a fight captaining Santisima Trinidads would make it into a slug fest and single target spamming similiar to a titan fight on EvE. Boring and very pointless. Having a mix of ships to fill all the roles really would make things much more of a tactical thought process.

[RAMJB]

Yes. A dock is needed! :-) And some personalization of the ship. Add your own flags and colours and such.

Agree with the above mentioned. With the exception that one way or the other we have to make it possible for all players to reach end content, i.e. Santissima. If we want a game that has players and that has financial recources and can continue to live, we need PLAYERS. Few players are willing to play a game where they cant reach end content. 

That is why the solution for the knight-game mentioned above is NOT to limit the knight class. The solution is not to water the game down to arcade and it is NOT to make it impossible for the majority of the players to reach end content.

There is an easy way to solve it. By shaping the gameplay so that you BOTH can sail santissima as a medium good player or even BAD player, and so that there are elements in the gameplay that only lets the good players sail the BIG ships or become admirals in the large battles. 

To compare with knights. All has to be able to grind to get the chance to be a knight. But there should be gameplay were less good players dont get the chance to be knights.

 

 

I'm sorry but no. A single guy who doesn't know how to tack against the wind with a Ship of the Line, nor knows how to handle his sails to properly keep stations with his fellow teammates compromises a whole battle. His lack of maneouvering skills will put a whole line of battle cohesion at risk. In this game a single bad player in a ship he should not be sailing based on his skill level can ruin a whole battle for the unlucky dozen players who are fighting alongside him, leading to the loss of massively expensive ships, ships that in an open world environment will be extremely hard to replace.

 

A single guy who has a big ship yet has no clue on how to use it shouldn't be using it. If I'm in a lumbering merchant and I contract a couple of escort ships I want them to be at least proficient. Because if they are not and we get attacked I'll be the one paying the biggest consequences of their lack of skill.

 

A guy who has not the skill required to use a ship shouldn't be using it in the open world. Endgame content will still be available in the TDM mode if they want to enjoy it. But giving ships to people who don't know how to use them in a sandbox game rebounds and has a notable effect on other players who are forced to put up with their derps and messups. And while I don't care about that in an one-off TDM game, I'm going to be bloody mad if that happens in the open sea, causing the loss of my ship because the guy sailing in front of me which I'm supposed to sail in formation with keeps on dropping his sails to fire constantly because he can't even aim his guns on the move, leading to me and whoever is trailing me in formation to lose cohesion with the ships he has in front, splitting our line in two and gifting the enemy with a crushing victory as a result, just because he doesn't know how to fight in his ship.

 

Sorry, but no deal. Not on this end at least.

 

 

 

on top of that a system that allows everyone to have the biggest ships in due time means a system that makes using small ships irrelevant, thus leading to the official extinction in-game of the historically most common ships in the sea, ruining the whole immersive experience for everyone. It's called power creep, and it's a sandbox game experience killer. POTBS was infested by it, and in that game 2/3 of the whole ship selection would never be seen in the open sea (when they should've been the most common) because everyone was in a lvl50 big ship. That must never happen here. Which instantly means that endgame ships must be very hard to achieve and command and be achievable only if you're skilled enough and make enough merits to do so.

 

As for players wanting endgame content to be happy and play a game, that's easy to refute as false. How many players have used anything bigger than a Battleship in EVE online?. How many players ever got a hand on a Titan in EVE online?. How many players play EVE online and is it a succesful game?.

 

Think of 1st rates as NA's Titans. A dozen of them at the most per faction. EVE's been years by now proving that having the biggest meanest fighting machines in the game being extremely limited in numbers has nothing to do with in-game player numbers. I don't see why it shouldn't be the case here aswell.

[PrezesOi]

Are Santisima or Victory awesome ships for line battle? Of course. Will be Naval Action line battle simulator? I hope not.
With equal pleasure I'm using all available ships, and I hope that the full game will offer such variety of activities, so that it will be still.
All this discussion about limiting players by  some leet criteria seems to me to be inappropriate. Let the Game-Labs put it clear what is their target? 200 or 200,000 players?

 

Battles rarely been planned by the brilliant strategists whose orders were executed by perfectly trained officers, always competent. Most often it was the opposite - and less pathetic side won.

[Illusive Tabby]

Are Santisima or Victory awesome ships for line battle? Of course. Will be Naval Action line battle simulator? I hope not.

With equal pleasure I'm using all available ships, and I hope that the full game will offer such variety of activities, so that it will be still.

All this discussion about limiting players by  some leet criteria seems to me to be inappropriate. Let the Game-Labs put it clear what is their target? 200 or 200,000 players?

Not 100% sure of what you're saying...but as Ram said, "end game" content, such as 1st and 2nd rate ships SHOULD be rare. I mean, as he even said, look at EvE Online. First thing any brand new player says when they get into EvE...'I want a Titan". Hell, I said it. And it is and should be similar to Naval Action. A vast number of people will say "I want a Victory class 1st rate!" and then likely end up playing in a Super Frigate at best. And in EvE only a small percentage of 1% of the players even get into a battle with a Titan on grid, let alone piloting one.

 

  Even if I knew how to sail a Santisima perfectly, I would, and at the moment, do NOT want to. Line battles are borring in my opinion, where something...er..smaller...like a Constitution seems like the largest thing I would sail. As Jack Aubrey put it in..I think Master and Commander, he (I) wanted a ship that was not tied down to a squadron, he wanted to operate on his own and take prizes. And the perfect ships for such a captain are ususally frigates. More likely than not, I'll end up sailing something similar to Suprise. Manouverable, well armed and a deadly fighting ship.

 

  Again, first rates should be something you earn with skill, not something you are given for playing for 1000 hours and picking off cutters.  The last thing I personally want is to be sailing in the sandbox and see a 1st rate every 5 minutes, sailing alone. A) No way would I bother engaging them, and I'm going to flee from them if they engage me. A frigate, even a super frigate, really is no match for one, and when you have people playing (what I consider) fun ships, and then the other half playing line ships...the groups will hardly mingle except for gank fleets.

[PrezesOi]

Activities should be end content, not most expensive ships, just because they are expensive or time consuming (for nolife grindmonkeys). Activity so varied that owner ofS antisima will jump with joy to Cutter, to take part in activitivity for light ships veterans.

[LordSitruc]

I have to agree with the above statements of first rates not being end game, they are big, should be extremely expensive but right now the way things are looking my end game ship will probably be a snow, or ship of similar size, possibly a larger frigate, but I want something that has enough punch to take out merchant ships and out run everything that out guns it. A military runs on its belly and if cut off its food supply then maybe the bigger ships can claim a few cities for the nation I join.

[Edward Vernon]

Thus far it does not seem like NA will be P2P or P2W. You buy the game and then make your way up the "ladder" until you reach the limits of your capabilities. There may be it seems the possibility of micro transactions for vanity items and maybe special ships (generally smaller ones and of average capability for it's size, similar to the "Gold" tanks in WoT).

 

I would envisage spending most of my time in ships from Snow to Constitution in size, according to requirements of the task in hand.

[Kaos]

Serious endgame SoL should be a group project and have an upkeep. It has to be earned instead of grinded and it would preferably need a group of people to work on it's upkeep. It could be kind of a representative of specific nation/society/group whatever you will call it. An idea to courage people to bring it into the battles would be the seriously lessened upkeep for example.

Earn it with skillful performance in pvp battles. Admiralty/investors will sponsor you because they trust their expensive ship into your hands. Passive dockcamping will mean less upkeeping sponsorship from admiralty making it more and more expensive for the player(s) and likewise the upkeep cost will decrease for satisfying results against other players in combat (Admiralty throws all it's money at you for performing well therefore being good with it means less upkeep). To avoid cross-nation fixed battle exploits to keep the cost low it will get lower only by fighting against different players.

This should give players a goal to get good and sharpen their skill instead of just grinding it out and then being clueless how to operate it because you have much more responsibility and weight on your shoulders by sailing one in a fleet. It would also help the lesser ships in fleet knowing that their most important ship is in proven hands instead of making the smaller ones more worried about the SOL in their own team than the enemy's.

To not make PvE people angry because not all will qualify to sail one, they can also get SOL but it will be restricted to PvE encounters only so they will not harm any PvP fleet with their lack of competence.

[Illusive Tabby]

To not make PvE people angry because not all will qualify to sail one, they can also get SOL but it will be restricted to PvE encounters only so they will not harm any PvP fleet with their lack of competence.

I think I read that there will remain a form of TDM mode similar to the current sea tirals and that, while you may need to "grind" for said ship, you won't lose them and I think it won't cost anything...But I'm still unsure of how ship lost/replacement/ownership ect will work.

[Grunf]

I kind of felt progression, no matter how rough it is has taught me a great deal:

 

• With Lynx I have learned basic ship controls, and basic gunnery
• With Cutter I have learned advanced gunnery, where and how to shoot, how to range shots, and what each shot type does
• With Brig I have learned manual Skipper, how to tack sails, how to use battle sails, and how to sail into the wind (or around it)
• With Snow I have learned how to battle bigger ships, i.e. Surprise frigates, how to rake a ship, and what it means to have 2 decks of guns firing
• Now I am on Surprise, and it was my first time to try Trafalgar yesterday. I am still learning the importance of Line engagements, why holding the line is important, and observing other players and coordinating actions, maneuvers and the rest is important. I also tried some PvE, and there I am learning what does it take to take down Trinconmalee.

 

.... so in my opinion, getting a biggest First Rate like Santissima from the get go, would basically make you useless on the battlefield and a hindrance to your team, so I pretty much agree with RAMJB on this one. For once, I do not feel ready yet to take Santissima or Victory to battle yet. So In my opinion, the current damage progression works for the battles (PvE, PvP and Trafalgar). However, all ships (or all classes of ships) should be available in battle mode, eventually (after unlocking).

 

As far as Open World goes, I also support making 1st rates on the level, cost and availability equivalent to EVE's Titans. They were behemoths of the sea, and seeing one in open world would mean that it's captain has served his nation a long time (many (successful) missions), and with distinction.

 

Typically you would see such a ship commanded by and Admiral, as a flagship of the bigger battle force, and supported by more ships (as regardless of how impressive Ships of the Line are, they were still very slow on the maneuvering side), not in a hands of a pirate captain, or a privateer. So essentially that kind of ship could be an award for a distinguished naval service, or given only for a selected mission.

 

Also I would see (as I believe I saw somewhere on the forums) that the biggest ship you could get would depend greatly on your career choice as well. Pirates would almost never commandeer anything bigger than the frigate (even that was rare), as it was impractical.

 

Some thing to perhaps counterbalance the frequency of the bigger ships would be a permaloss. So, like in EVE, if you loose your ship, assuming you do not have insurance, you have to start over. In Naval Action, if you loose a frigate, you would either need to re-capture it (with some smaller ship), thus enforcing boarding and superior boarding tactics, or re-earn it (through reputation), as in those times captains who lost their ship, had to face court-martial, and it would be long (if ever) to regain command. Then if you consider a Ship of the Line as reward ship, it would be nearly impossible to get it again, once lost (and all the more lucrative to capture).

 

What I would like to see though (assuming pirating would be a valid playstyle) the use of bomb shot. It should be dangerous (giving a chance to explode on ship launching it if done wrong, or a high chance of exploding (say 20%) with massive (and potentially fatal consequences)), but deadly when used correctly.

 

 

Sorry for the big wall of text, but those are some of the my ideas on how to achieve balance, as I like this game a lot already, and would not like to see it destroyed by having 100s of players sailing in victories and santissimas (at least in the open world)

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

...

 

As far as Open World goes, I also support making 1st rates on the level, cost and availability equivalent to EVE's Titans. They were behemoths of the sea, and seeing one in open world would mean that it's captain has served his nation a long time (many (successful) missions), and with distinction.

 

Typically you would see such a ship commanded by and Admiral, as a flagship of the bigger battle force, and supported by more ships (as regardless of how impressive Ships of the Line are, they were still very slow on the maneuvering side), not in a hands of a pirate captain, or a privateer. So essentially that kind of ship could be an award for a distinguished naval service, or given only for a selected mission.

 

...

 

Some thing to perhaps counterbalance the frequency of the bigger ships would be a permaloss. So, like in EVE, if you loose your ship, assuming you do not have insurance, you have to start over. In Naval Action, if you loose a frigate, you would either need to re-capture it (with some smaller ship), thus enforcing boarding and superior boarding tactics, or re-earn it (through reputation), as in those times captains who lost their ship, had to face court-martial, and it would be long (if ever) to regain command. Then if you consider a Ship of the Line as reward ship, it would be nearly impossible to get it again, once lost (and all the more lucrative to capture).

 

Agreed on the operation of First Rates.   They should require extremely active and successful Navy Service, or the massive support of a Large Society through cost to obtain/operate/maintain.

 

Where we disagree is with your claim that a Captain who lost his ship would find it difficult to regain Command.  This is entirely at odds with the spirit and operation of the historical Navy at that time.  As long as you didn't lose your ship through malfeasance or negligence, and were a ship available, you'd be assured of regaining command of the same rough class, or even perhaps a better ship based on the circumstances in which you lost it.  Captains were required by the Articles of War to fight their ship, and not to run away unless presented with a superior force or a losing battle (e.g. after exchanging broadsides, lucky hits or other risks of war presented you with a situation where continuing to fight would guarantee the loss of the ship, and running away would allow you to bring her to action another day).  

 

A Captain that lost his ship always was subject to the Court Martial, but unless the loss was the fault of himself or his crew, was found not-guilty and returned to the service with an untarnished reputation.

[Tagera]

Also, ship building should take a long time depending on the ship class. The Victory took over six years to build and put into limited service. I'm not saying it should be six years in game. But it should be a massive undertaking to build the big 1st Rates. Say a week tops for the small ships (Lynx, Cutter, maybe the Brig), Snow and others within it's class could be a week and a half, then 2 weeks for 4th Rates, 3 weeks for 3rd Rates, 4 Weeks 2nd Rates, and call it a month and a half tops for 1st Rate. Of course would have to be lots of discussion on times.

[RAMJB]

Also, ship building should take a long time depending on the ship class. The Victory took over six years to build and put into limited service. I'm not saying it should be six years in game.

 

IMO those ships should be admiralty owned only, and not buildable by players - real ships of the line were never privately owned because of how expensive they were to build, but even more of how outrageous the running costs of a ship that size were (from sailor fees to keep everything in working order), they all belonged to the military IRL, so they should in the game. The way to command a SOL in open would should be doing a career on the military and getting promotions by fullfitting orders. And even then having command of one doesn't mean ownership, you can be removed from command if better commanders are in the promotion line, or if you do something stupid that gets you demoted.

 

again that's IMO, but would make for the best scenario possible regarding those behemoths.

[Destraex]

I agree. It should be a commission. But a commission you could keep for use in the royal navy. i.e. it stays in your stable but is only usable when playing for that navy.

If you capture an enemy nations first rate while in that navy it is also added to your stable of owned ships. But by owned I mean playable by the navy you are playing for.

 

I do not want to have my ships taken from my stable and this would enable me to keep them for use in the navy and still kit them out etc without fear of them being taken away.

[Morashtak]

Well met fellow salties,
 
First a bit of background - Not coming from a naval based MMO but from a big, stompy robot arena shooter (as well as Sid Meier's Pirates! but passed on the open seas MMO's) it is good to see many, many posts about how open and receptive the dev team is and has been. Should they feel that only they have the ideas that will make this game a success and exclude any suggestions of real consequence then they are in danger of becoming insular and marooning their original backers on an island.  One hopes that they are willing to keep an open mind and admit mistakes (even as far as FFXIV tho' one hopes it never comes to that debacle).
 
As a former tester of a stompy robot game it became apparant that the dev team was going to allow an incredible amount of weapon loadouts, engine rating and armor changes, as well as no loss of chassis. An economic reward system was put in place and then discarded. A number of other rather "interesting" mechanics were added that pushed a large number of original backers away as it no longer was what had been originally portrayed as.
 
Lessons learned;
 
Do not allow unlimited customization - We already have the number of cannons hard coded but one could go further and ensure a center of gravity machanic dissuades anyone from placing the largest sizes at all positions or risk capsizing in all but the lightest seas and smoothest of turns. Quite a few SOLs were lost due to poor CG and sea state management.
 
Losses of ships - Already a lively discussion going on elsewhere so the main point is that there should be mechanics that dissuades players from just "ram/sink/respawn/repeat". Features such as reputation (fame/infamy) to economics should not prevent but only penalize players that play recklessly and poorly while allowing new players to learn how to best manage their ships and play style.
 
Ship upgrades - Upgrades should not easily be found at all ports, perhaps a few only at specialized ports or only at time of initial build (barring a major refit with the attendent expense and time out of commision). Economics may well come into play as that an inconvenient war could place a hold on all but upgrades for warships, etc. The upgrades themselves should have trade-offs; faster turn rate will play havok with your CG if not managed properly, etc. Ships upgrades should be more or less expensive based on size of ship, reputation, allied nation, etc.
 
 
Other musings;
 
PvP - Safe harbours should be relatively safe from all but the most dedicated, well equipped group of players that have a solid plan (see any number of enemy port assaults). Same with well established and well patrolled trade routes.  Players that explore in uncharted waters using smaller, cheaper ships could still be attacked but would offer the attacker a poor risk/reward scenario. Economics should push the players with the more expensive ships to higher risk/reward areas while allowing some measure of relative safety to smaller ships. The player that loads up his merchantman with expensive goods and goes sailing off through enemy waters with no escort is simply tempting fate and only has himself to blame should he lose his ship. Want to avoid PvP? Use a fast ship and sail to the nearest safe harbor at the first sign of trouble.
 
Instanced battles - Not seeing how an ally that is racing to your rescue could join in if they "stumbled" upon you under attack or decide that the battle is over and it's time to set sail for a secure anchorage.  Hoping there is some way to do so even if there is a wait time so that, through voice coms, players are not being continously rescued by friends sailing in from across the ocean.
 
Ship economics - In Pirates! there were a few times that running low of food would necessitate an attack on a friendly ship in order to acquire more provisions. It should be costly to try to maintain a large crew for any length of time. As an aside, allow some trading on the open seas for just this as well as smuggling, etc.
 
Crew resource management (CRM) - Would like to see crew morale reflect both the ships and captains ability to see them back to home port. A crew that is distrustful of either or both would have a negative impact on battle and economics (from discension in the ranks to leaving at the next port and all the way up to mutiny). Better quality provisions, better crew quarters, entertainment, and the like could be ways of making eager sailors to flock to your ship at recruitment time. A well behaved ship and a competent captain would assist in keeping the crew in line as well.
 
World resources - Many months from now it would be nice to see economics play a huge role in what is moved from one port to another. Allow the players to choose from a set of shipping requests unique to the port they are at as well as what their ship is best at hauling. Specialized cargos could have higher rewards for the first ship to arrive as well as a reputation boost for the captain and higher morale for the crew. Tea runs, anyone?
 
Wartime - In concert with economics hostile nations are going to make the life of a trader more interesting. For smugglers, opportunities abound. And for pirates looking to go legit this may be the time to get that Letter of Marque (you do have a neutral or better reputation with the nation you're requesting a letter from, yes?).
 

Here's hoping that NA turns out to be the sleeper hit of 2015 or 2016.

[Magnum]

There is a natural progression to all this.

 

where __________________ helps create a sense of FUN in a player then "sense of FUN" creates loyalty to the game then loyalty to the game creates "lots of cheese and crackers" for the developers.

 

The only blank not fully filled in is what helps create this "sense of FUN" in game.

 

I think there are several ingredients that contribute to the "sense of FUN"

 

1.(most players like) - A bot sandbox where a newer player or an old hand can practice without embarrassment. (PVE).

2.(many players like) - A vigorous matchplay setting (PVP).

3.(many players like) - Large engagements with 10 or more players per side.

4.(many players like) - A vast and ever changing open world to explore.

 

It seems we are well on our way to 1-3 leaving 4 to grouse about. IDK how much of the economy and "world" are set at this point - so here goes my shot from a position of unknown, keep in mind I adhere to the Tom T. Hall school of philosophy "It's faster horses/younger women/older whiskey/and more money.":

 

I would like to see #4 roughly similar to real life in the world of 1780 - 1820. Basic to my idea is that a new player starts as a young officer or a young merchant and as he/she progresses up the ranks (levels) things are gained/earned - such as larger ships and more wealth. With bad decisions those things could be lost.

 

As they progress or lose out the CHARACTER ages and eventually becomes non able - as in real life. As part of a CHARACTER's progression he/she would have limited chances to spawn future replacement CHARACTERS - so when CHARACTER A ages out - some of his/her wealth would pass to CHARACTER B and so on. The aging should be as accelerated as our battle timers are - say 24/1 - 12 hours in game time compressed into 1/2 hour real time.

 

For every 12 hours of (playing time = real time) that passes - CHARACTER A ages in game by 288 hours - tic toc baby! A 60 year naval career would be over in 38 days real time (if you played 24-7) - however if you play 3 hours per day - a CHARACTER A would last about 300 days IRL, by then you should have ample time to spawn a replacement who has made it up to Lieutenant and is ready for his/her first Corvette CHARACTER B.

 

CHARACTER A could also be killed in action as was Lord Nelson, forcing the player into a backup (less powerful) CHARACTER B, C, D etc. Or if the CHARACTER A had no foresight and didn't have a backup they could CHARACTER as a young midshipman for a week or two (IRL) to be considered equivalent a couple years in game life.

 

Life in one of the worlds great navies would be harder for a young aristocratic officer than for a young merchant, but the young merchant could amass a fortune unlikely for the young officer outside of the navy, but would also age out and require following CHARACTERs.

 

$.02

[Don Alvarez]

I'm sorry but no. A single guy who doesn't know how to tack against the wind with a Ship of the Line, nor knows how to handle his sails to properly keep stations with his fellow teammates compromises a whole battle. His lack of maneouvering skills will put a whole line of battle cohesion at risk. In this game a single bad player in a ship he should not be sailing based on his skill level can ruin a whole battle for the unlucky dozen players who are fighting alongside him, leading to the loss of massively expensive ships, ships that in an open world environment will be extremely hard to replace.

 

A single guy who has a big ship yet has no clue on how to use it shouldn't be using it. If I'm in a lumbering merchant and I contract a couple of escort ships I want them to be at least proficient. Because if they are not and we get attacked I'll be the one paying the biggest consequences of their lack of skill.

 

A guy who has not the skill required to use a ship shouldn't be using it in the open world. Endgame content will still be available in the TDM mode if they want to enjoy it. But giving ships to people who don't know how to use them in a sandbox game rebounds and has a notable effect on other players who are forced to put up with their derps and messups. And while I don't care about that in an one-off TDM game, I'm going to be bloody mad if that happens in the open sea, causing the loss of my ship because the guy sailing in front of me which I'm supposed to sail in formation with keeps on dropping his sails to fire constantly because he can't even aim his guns on the move, leading to me and whoever is trailing me in formation to lose cohesion with the ships he has in front, splitting our line in two and gifting the enemy with a crushing victory as a result, just because he doesn't know how to fight in his ship.

 

Sorry, but no deal. Not on this end at least.

Before I reply just let me say first that I agree with everything you said. 

 

However, for the sake of being objective I must interject that if Player A, who doesn't know a jib boom from a spanker, pays x amount of dollars for a game, and Player B, who is Black Sam incarnate, pays x amount of dollars for the same, they have the right to expect identical opportunity for access to all facets of that same game. That unfortunately is the nature of gaming. Bad players will always be around, as sure as there's carts to horses. One can only hope a couple well handled frigates and and administered dose of Darwinism will keep their Victory solo escapades to a minimum. Since skill is a very subjective measure of a player, you cannot rightly gate content based on it.

 

As far as rates go, I agree they should not be plentiful at all, and the majority of ships we see in game should not be larger than a light frigate. I have some ideas about handling that, once I get the idea shaped into some manner of coherent text I'll post it over in the suggestions forum.