Open World- Game Modes

[Jeremiah O'Brien]

Here's an idea to resolve all the debate about open world.
Have two "game modes," but on two separate servers.

-Server one will be "arcade" open world.
-Server two will be "hardcore" open world.

Server one-
The "arcade mode" will feature durabilities, fast-paced gameplay, and tons of PvP. Economy will be greatly downplayed to allow players to have many fun battles in one gaming session. More casual players won't have to worry about longer sailing times and less battles. Fleet Battles can be arranged and announced ahead of time for maximum attendance.

Server two-
The "hardcore mode" will place great emphasis on economy/PVE. Explorers will be crucial and resources in high demand. Battles Will still occur, simply less frequently. Ships will not have durabilities, and once a ship is sunk, it is lost. Captured ships will function in the full capacity of normal ones. Resources will be very important for ship crafting, and crafting will play a very important part in the game.

This can solve the issue of casual gamers who have a more limited time, and allow them to have just as much fun without having to worry about crafting ships or collecting resources, they can focus on having exciting battles in an open world environment. Likewise, hardcore gamers will have a more realistic environment, which will require crafting and resource gathering, which the casual gamer won't have as much time for.

Both types of gamers will be able to experience the beautiful open world, but without having to deal with concessions made for other playing styles. And, when the hardcore gamers have a smaller time window, they can jump right into the "arcade mode," while when casual gamers get some more free time from their busy schedule, they can hop into the "hardcore mode" server and do some exploring of their own.

This can accommodate both playing styles, and allow for people with different time frames to make the most of their playing time, rather than have everyone in one game mode where we all lose out a little bit. Feel free to point out any flaws in my ideas, and share any suggestions you think could make this better.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Jeremiah O'Brien

[majordon]

This "hardcore mode" would suit my needs very well. I play Rise of Venice quite a bit and enjoy the slower paced games.

[D. Federico de Gravina y N]

Hardcore mode for me!!!!!

Edited March 28, 2015 by RAE_Cmdt.Cavero

[Jeremiah O'Brien]

I'm glad to see support from the hardcore gamers

Hopefully we can give everyone a good gaming experience

[Johny Reb]

While I'm not against your idea, I think we should just stick with one server unless its used as an experiment to see what type game people really want. My reasoning is simple and has been stated elsewhere. The map is gigantic, therefore a very high population will be needed or the vast area of the map will be uninhabited. Split the game in to two servers and you just magnify this problem. It is a niche game as you know. Its the same argument I used against having a realistic map server and a fantasy map server.

[Magnum]

While I'm not against your idea, I think we should just stick with one server unless its used as an experiment to see what type game people really want. My reasoning is simple and has been stated elsewhere. The map is gigantic, therefore a very high population will be needed or the vast area of the map will be uninhabited. Split the game in to two servers and you just magnify this problem. It is a niche game as you know. Its the same argument I used against having a realistic map server and a fantasy map server.

 

In real life vast areas of the map were uninhabited (at least by Europeans) - why would this be a problem here?

[Jeremiah O'Brien]

Solution: have a smaller map for arcade mode. This would mean less travel time, more battles, and more fun for PvP players.

[Herzog]

Love the idea of Hardcore Mode! +1

[Galileus]

In real life vast areas of the map were uninhabited (at least by Europeans) - why would this be a problem here?

 

In real life it wasn't a game.

 

Seriously, can we FINALLY stop with this stupid demagogy? Or at least force everyone who keeps repeating this moot "argument" to pee in a bucket?

 

Because in real life we use arguments, not catchphrases >.<

[Guest raat]

In theory, this isn't a bad idea.  However, I've seen communities split between separate game modes in other games and there are always issues.  Besides the obvious of it splits up the population so there are fewer people on each server making accomplishing normal gameplay difficult or time-consuming, it has other unintended effects.

 

The biggest problem of those is it creates an "Us vs. Them" mentality between the 2 communities.  Both of them end up arguing like children over the devs attention.  And then getting sour when one side gets favored over the other.  And of course, that splits up the devs' focus since now they are having to create 2 separate games as a opposed to one.

 

While it seems to solve a problem, it, in reality, only creates more division and drama in the community.

[Jeremiah O'Brien]

And of course, that splits up the devs' focus since now they are having to create 2 separate games as opposed to one.

It doesn't have to be two separate games, each mode can operate on the same base. Its simply a question of altering the variables.

For example:

-Take the "5 durabilities," and alter that variable to "1 durability," so each ship in hardcore mode can only be sunk once. Captured ships will not lose a durability.

-Alter the time compression variable to make sailing faster in arcade.

And so on and so forth.

The devs don't need to make to two separate games, they just create one as the base and then alter its variables to create the other game mode.

Also, I decided to remove the poll and add it back in later. It's better to discuss all the possibilities of this idea before we cast our votes.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Jeremiah O'Brien

[Guest raat]

It doesn't have to be two separate games, each mode can operate on the same base. Its simply a question of altering the variables.

For example:

-Take the "5 durabilities," and alter that variable to "1 durability," so each ship in hardcore mode can only be sunk once. Captured ships will not lose a durability.

-Alter the time compression variable to make sailing faster in arcade.

And so on and so forth.

The devs don't need to make to two separate games, they just create one as the base and then alter its variables to create the other game mode.

Also, I decided to remove the poll and add it back in later. It's better to discuss all the possibilities of this idea before we cast our votes.

 

Yes, but each game mode would have different priorities which would require separate balancing for each ship they introduce.  Separate balancing for the economy.  Separate balancing for everything.  And balance is where everyone gets salty.

 

Having to try and meet the demands of both communities is time-consuming, and is halving the time of the devs between each mode.  Ultimately, imo, resulting in either one great game mode and one very poor one or 2 very mediocre/poor game modes.

 

Focusing their efforts to make one game great should be the way forward.  You can never make everyone happy.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Raatha

[Jeremiah O'Brien]

Great points there. I see your side of the argument. I guess it would be best to wait until the open world testing and see how things work out.

[Windy]

Hardcore....

[Balsafer]

advise against this Reb and a few others made key points to why it won't work 1 map to big and 2 split the devs time.  

[Jeremiah O'Brien]

Good points all around. Two servers could certainly be a problem. If anything, we should keep the arena mode, and make the open world slightly more realistic. But, as this is all pure conjecture, we will need to wait and see how the open world works.

I think that the devs should continue working on the current system, and then, if time permits, make a "hardcore mode" later on, for both hardcore gamers and those who have played through the open world, and are looking for a bigger challenge

Edited March 28, 2015 by Jeremiah O'Brien

[Jeremiah O'Brien]

Here's a new idea that is easier to implement and provides a better compromise within the current system.

Here's an idea. Instead of durabilities,everyone starts out with 5 basic ships. Each ship only has one "durability," but captured ships do not lose their "durability." With enough money, any ship can be repaired to its original condition.

Why do this? Because then, it becomes imperative to collect resources and craft ships. Not everyone has to do this, of course; you can buy ships from others. Ship prices will be based off of the type of ship and materials used to craft it.

This would make the game more realistic, and would also provide a huge incentive for econ-based players. Both playing styles gain from this.

Thoughts?

[Sarogus]

As already stated, splitting the community to cater for certain groups is a terrible idea. Let the devs make the game they want to make. You see stuff like this time and time again, especially in the free to play market where the community will harass to such an extent that the devs do crumble. Sad to say the gaming community generally ruin games. The devs for NA have done a brilliant job so far in holding fast and often telling the community, no this is how its going to be. Look at War Thunder, that is the best example of a game that could've destroyed WoT but due to the community, failed. Taking the middle road when it comes to game design, as admirable as it may be to cater to both groups, only leaves the game being a half assed version of two different worlds.  
 

Jeremiah O'Brien, on 29 Mar 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

Here's an idea. Instead of durabilities,everyone starts out with 5 basic ships. Each ship only has one "durability," but captured ships do not lose their "durability." With enough money, any ship can be repaired to its original condition. 
Why do this? Because then, it becomes imperative to collect resources and craft ships. Not everyone has to do this, of course; you can buy ships from others. Ship prices will be based off of the type of ship and materials used to craft it.
This would make the game more realistic, and would also provide a huge incentive for econ-based players. Both playing styles gain from this.

As for doing this in relation to encouraging people to collect resources and craft ships. Having one ship with 5 durability is exactly the same and far more encouraging imo. As far as I'm aware the devs have already stated that depending on what the ship is constructed in, live oak for example, will increase not only the costs for construction but also limit the locations in which it can be built. 

[Jeremiah O'Brien]

As for doing this in relation to encouraging people to collect resources and craft ships. Having one ship with 5 durability is exactly the same and far more encouraging imo. As far as I'm aware the devs have already stated that depending on what the ship is constructed in, live oak for example, will increase not only the costs for construction but also limit the locations in which it can be built.

No, this is not the same. In the idea I proposed, "durabilities" will not exist. Each ship only has one "life," so to speak. There really isn't any reason to have durabilities, they only detract from the otherwise realistic feel of NA. Also, captured ships will not lose a durability because they will not have any. Durabilities are simply an unnecessary feature.

Also, could you please explain why you think durabilities would be more "encouraging"? I really would like to hear someone else's opinion on this.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Jeremiah O'Brien

[Sarogus]

Your idea of 5 ships one durability each can be more or less seen as 5 lives. Having 1 ship with 5 durability can be seen exactly the same way. Yet my idea detracts from the realistic feel of NA but having 5 ships when you start the game isn't?

I never said durability itself is more encouraging, having ONE ship and not five however is very encouraging, irrespective of the fact it has 5 durability. Its your ONLY ship, so I'd feel more inclined to be focus on economy then combat early game. Thats just my opinion. 

As the devs have already stated though, they want people to be able to, as they put it, in a 2hr time period if they were seeking battle they averaged that the player could participate in 5 battles during that 2hr period. Having durability allows this. Durability can also be seen as a reflection of the state of your ship, ie, how well its maintained under your command. Low durability can be reflected as poor maintenance, poor leadership which can be attributed to lack of skill and funds. While a ship thats running on full durability shows wealth and skill. I believe it reflects the age quite well, seeing ships in varying degrees of quality.  

[Johny Reb]

In real life vast areas of the map were uninhabited (at least by Europeans) - why would this be a problem here?

I think others have answered the question for me but I guess I can reiterate.

 

Its a game and people want to have fun and encounter stuff. Real life was a job not an entertainment activity.

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

I want to do econ and pvp. Your server idea would prevent this.

I like the idea of ship loss, I suggest ship and separate cargo insurance rather than durability.

[Bart Smith]

Not sure how big population we get for Naval Action and splitting for 2 servers could be risky ...hope Steam magic work here and we get lot of new community members.  Games like that with specific topic and timeframe could quickly discurage those who not are historical "maniacs". And loosing playerbase for game like that causing a lot damage...So imo we should stay with one server and if will be too crowded (hope so!) think about second...

Edited March 29, 2015 by Bart Smith

[Flyingtower]

I'm not sure about two separate servers. I do however support your hard core mode as described. +1

[PIerrick de Badas]

i m againt splitting the community in two. Let the des make their game, they probably think about it fa better than us.