PDA

View Full Version : Naval battle nitpicking



Lethalla
06-08-2012, 09:59 AM
First of all, YES, I KNOW THIS IS A VIDEO GAME.

However, since the devs are taking all the trouble to try and MAKE the environment look realistic, they have made Connor's ship's movement unrealistic.Namely, it can outrun every other ship, and it does a 180 deg turn around the last ship in the video.


Sailing ships don't move like that. Connor's ship appears to have much the same sail capacity as the others, yet it can move faster? How? It can't capture a greater volume of wind than the other ships. I believe I saw oars at the start of the vid, but even they wouldn't make much difference. This is a deep water, keeled ship, not a relatively shallow-bottomed galley in which oars would definitely make it faster - though whether it would be faster than a keeled ship I don't know.So how can it go faster than the others?

Secondly, the wind normally blows in one direction at a time. The last ship in the vid is sailing toward them without tacking (a zigzag course required when sailing against the wind), and yet Connor's ship can fly up to it, blast it with cannons and then do a 180 degree turn around it at speed? It's a sailing ship, NOT a speed boat.


I'm sorry, I know everyone seems to be excited about the naval battle but to me they have failed on this one. It will probably be that I'll just have to ignore the wrongness, but it's kind of spoiled it for me.
And for the trolls: my opinion, even if it differs to yours, is every bit as valid. :P

itsamea-mario
06-08-2012, 10:04 AM
Interesting.
Though I imagine the naval battles would be fairly dull if they were realistic.

Azurefeatherfly
06-08-2012, 10:11 AM
Hutchinson basically said that they did not want a simulation of sailing because they did not want to slow the game down, they wanted to be fast, responsive and fun. They could slow it down by a fraction but realistic Naval Warfare would really drag the game down. Keep in mind that that this Naval is a free-roam mechanic, and boring the player can be very easy with something such as this.

Hutchinson said that Den Defence was a drag mechanic and he did not want Naval Warfare to be as such.

rob.davies2014
06-08-2012, 10:19 AM
I sail a lot, I've been having lessons since I was young and I really enjoy it, what's more I completely understand OP's argument about speed and wind.
However, Im not bothered about it. It would not be as fun if it was a completely realistic experience. If you wanted you could tack your way upwind in the game o make it feel right but personally I'm going to enjoy this game as it is without worrying about realism.

Assassinsyk
06-08-2012, 10:24 AM
Reality < games

Not to sound like a ******, but I hear these same arguments in every game, and it comes down to if you like Gran Turismo or NFS. Me, I don't know how to sail a ship and don't want to learn it to play a game. I want the ILLUSION of sailing. Or driving a car, or killing a dude. And I want to do huge, unrealistic airs on snowboard (SSX) because although fake, it boils down to more fun. If games didn't give me anything I couldn't have in real life, Id rather hang out off-screen and get a much needed tan while Im at it ;)

Mr_Shade
06-08-2012, 10:38 AM
I think taking my Ubisoft hat off, the idea of a realistic sailing simulation, would bore me..

The idea of blowing stuff up and sailing the seas as seen in the demo, excites me..


It's a little diversion from the main gameplay of the title, I'm sure they could make it 110% realistic, but would it be fun?

Last time I checked normal cannon balls don't explode in a fiery explosion, but if they do it adds to the wow factor! - that's why they do it in some films ;)


im sure there are other sailing sims, on PC, that do the whole wind, sails and weather better, so maybe try one of those if your really looking for a sailing sim?


Im very happy with what I have seen in ACIII :D

pacmanate
06-08-2012, 10:45 AM
If it worked like a normal boat, I would die of boredom

dxsxhxcx
06-08-2012, 11:18 AM
as long as they have a good explanation to how Connor knows how to command/control a ship I'm fine if it isn't realistic...

freddie_1897
06-08-2012, 05:21 PM
I love how in AC the storyline is about artifacts that can control minds, and people are complaining about how unrealisticly fast the boats are. Seriously if you don't like unrealistic games the AC probably isn't the game for you

POP1Fan
06-08-2012, 05:33 PM
If they would make it realistic it would feel clunky and give the impression of bad controls.

LightRey
06-08-2012, 05:56 PM
Eh, you do realize that the "zigzag" course you're talking about (I'm not sure if there is an English term for it, though I would assume so) only works for ships with a sail design similar to modern sailing yachts, right? The sails of these ships do not have the capacity to turn significantly in the appropriate direction to catch more wind, nor does their design allow for any significant benefits of such a thing if they could, making the technique practically useless.

You should also keep in mind that the direction of the flow of the water often plays a role at least as significant as that of the wind, most often more so. If the direction of the flow of the water is opposite to that of the wind, a ship will often be able to sail at a much faster speed into the wind.

Finally, it is absolutely preposterous to assume that the wind will generally be coming from a single direction. Especially considering the location of the naval battle and the weather we see, it is more than reasonable to assume that the wind direction will actually frequently change quite dramatically.

EscoBlades
06-08-2012, 06:03 PM
I'm prepared to allow things like ship and sailing details slide if it makes the mechanic more fun.

So i see both points of view.

rileypoole1234
06-08-2012, 06:06 PM
I agree with the fact that it would be boring if realistic. I want to control a boat like I see in the movies, the fun, awesome way. If I wanted to control a boat realistically, I would go out and sail a boat. I understand your complaints though. Just an FYI, Alex said in a recent interview that the wind actually will affect the gameplay. He said that we'll want to sail with the wind to go faster.

obliviondoll
06-09-2012, 12:34 AM
Eh, you do realize that the "zigzag" course you're talking about (I'm not sure if there is an English term for it, though I would assume so) only works for ships with a sail design similar to modern sailing yachts, right? The sails of these ships do not have the capacity to turn significantly in the appropriate direction to catch more wind, nor does their design allow for any significant benefits of such a thing if they could, making the technique practically useless.

You should also keep in mind that the direction of the flow of the water often plays a role at least as significant as that of the wind, most often more so. If the direction of the flow of the water is opposite to that of the wind, a ship will often be able to sail at a much faster speed into the wind.

Finally, it is absolutely preposterous to assume that the wind will generally be coming from a single direction. Especially considering the location of the naval battle and the weather we see, it is more than reasonable to assume that the wind direction will actually frequently change quite dramatically.

First off, I owe you an apology over that argument we had on Twitter... sorry. Didn't mean to cause that much trouble. But I won't go too far on that, so back on topic.

The English word for zigzagging against the wind is "tacking" - in case you have use for it sometime. And ships in those days were designed for it. ANY ship with angled sails is capable of it to some extent. But the game doesn't seem to actually take wind movement into account at all when it comes to your movement speed. Also, for a sail-powered ship, the main consideration WILL be wind direction, the hulls are designed to minimise the impact of wave direction as much as possible, so it shouldn't impede the ship's movement as significantly as going against the wind does.

As for your last point... you missed the entire argument that was being made. The wind may be changing direction frequently, but you WON'T see it going in one direction for one ship, and the exact opposite direction for another ship that close, unless they're circling a tornado (which would turn into a waterspout and spoil everyone's fun).

For those people who say that naval combat can't be fun while taking a realistic approach to sailing against the wind and other aspects, look up Sid Meier's Pirates! - it has wind direction as a core element for how battles play out, and different ships move differently at different angles to the wind. Given the approach AC3 has taken to streamlining the HUD, and looking at the close-in perspective (as opposed to Pirates! which is top-down), wind direction might be difficult to gauge in AC3, and adding a HUD wind gauge might look out of place.

So in favour of the more "arcade-style" action we have here, there's the "it's not a simulation" argument which doesn't really need a lot of justification behind it, but which isn't really the best argument on its own. A better argument in favour of the Aquila being faster and more manoeuvrable is the simple fact that different ships, even different models of the same basic type of ship, can be upgraded in different ways. A ship with a copper plated hull will have a much tighter turning radius than unprotected wood, and sails made of different materials could explain the difference in speed. Not saying that real-world changes would be as dramatic as they are in a videogame, obviously, but making those changes more significant means players will feel like their upgrades have more meaning.

Honestly, I would like a more realistic approach if it had been done, and I'll probably be nitpicking the details like made as more information comes to light (and while playing), but I'm sure it will still be fun and feel awesome, and that's more important than being 100% realistic anyway.

LightRey
06-09-2012, 01:26 PM
First off, I owe you an apology over that argument we had on Twitter... sorry. Didn't mean to cause that much trouble. But I won't go too far on that, so back on topic.

The English word for zigzagging against the wind is "tacking" - in case you have use for it sometime. And ships in those days were designed for it. ANY ship with angled sails is capable of it to some extent. But the game doesn't seem to actually take wind movement into account at all when it comes to your movement speed. Also, for a sail-powered ship, the main consideration WILL be wind direction, the hulls are designed to minimise the impact of wave direction as much as possible, so it shouldn't impede the ship's movement as significantly as going against the wind does.

As for your last point... you missed the entire argument that was being made. The wind may be changing direction frequently, but you WON'T see it going in one direction for one ship, and the exact opposite direction for another ship that close, unless they're circling a tornado (which would turn into a waterspout and spoil everyone's fun).

For those people who say that naval combat can't be fun while taking a realistic approach to sailing against the wind and other aspects, look up Sid Meier's Pirates! - it has wind direction as a core element for how battles play out, and different ships move differently at different angles to the wind. Given the approach AC3 has taken to streamlining the HUD, and looking at the close-in perspective (as opposed to Pirates! which is top-down), wind direction might be difficult to gauge in AC3, and adding a HUD wind gauge might look out of place.

So in favour of the more "arcade-style" action we have here, there's the "it's not a simulation" argument which doesn't really need a lot of justification behind it, but which isn't really the best argument on its own. A better argument in favour of the Aquila being faster and more manoeuvrable is the simple fact that different ships, even different models of the same basic type of ship, can be upgraded in different ways. A ship with a copper plated hull will have a much tighter turning radius than unprotected wood, and sails made of different materials could explain the difference in speed. Not saying that real-world changes would be as dramatic as they are in a videogame, obviously, but making those changes more significant means players will feel like their upgrades have more meaning.

Honestly, I would like a more realistic approach if it had been done, and I'll probably be nitpicking the details like made as more information comes to light (and while playing), but I'm sure it will still be fun and feel awesome, and that's more important than being 100% realistic anyway.
You are correct that ships like that existed, but these naval war vessels were not those ships. These ships would have no use for it as they could simply never cope with the strain on the masts and the keel, especially because they are top-heavy. Also, you are wrong that any sail would benefit from it. Sure, there would be a force directed forward, but these sails would catch much less wind than sails actually designed to do so, and therefore the net force directed forward would be insignificant. You are also wrong about the influence of the wind direction. The flow of the water has nothing to do with waves. Waves are generated by wind and will therefore provide a force in the same direction as the wind. I'm talking about the direction the water is streaming itself. On rivers that direction is obvious and constant, but at sea it is dependent on a great many factors, of which, if near the coast, the tides are the main one. The tides are much more significant than the wind itself under many circumstances. I speak from experience here.

I'm not talking about the point of the post. Of course the game is unrealistic. That much is obvious and completely logical. Actual sea battles aren't so packed with action and excitement that they could be portrayed realistically in a game without the player being bored half the time or just too **** busy trying to actually sail the **** ship (which, trust me, is much harder than it looks). I'm not arguing that it's not unrealistic, I'm arguing the points the OP is making. You're right, there won't be such localized winds (though there can be, especially in those weather conditions), but that wasn't the point the OP was making. The OP literally said: "the wind normally blows in one direction at a time", which is just plain wrong. That's what I was arguing, nothing more. Winds can blow from varying directions both at the same time as well as alternating. Ships don't need wind constantly blowing in the same direction to move them forward. There's this thing called momentum.

Sid Meier's pirates is a joke. It doesn't suddenly get more realistic if you throw in a little wind. Sailing is a very complicated thing to do, especially with ships like these. It requires patience, a lot of skill in both the technique of sailing itself and in map reading, and a whole lot of luck, especially in a naval battle during a **** storm. The way Ubi did this is actually quite perfect. It keeps the gameplay simple and everything fluent enough to keep it action packed, just like with the musket reload time. It still gives you the feeling that you're actually sailing a ship. More so in fact than with any other game I've ever seen.

itsamea-mario
06-09-2012, 01:56 PM
You are correct that ships like that existed, but these naval war vessels were not those ships. These ships would have no use for it as they could simply never cope with the strain on the masts and the keel, especially because they are top-heavy. Also, you are wrong that any sail would benefit from it. Sure, there would be a force directed forward, but these sails would catch much less wind than sails actually designed to do so, and therefore the net force directed forward would be insignificant. You are also wrong about the influence of the wind direction. The flow of the water has nothing to do with waves. Waves are generated by wind and will therefore provide a force in the same direction as the wind. I'm talking about the direction the water is streaming itself. On rivers that direction is obvious and constant, but at sea it is dependent on a great many factors, of which, if near the coast, the tides are the main one. The tides are much more significant than the wind itself under many circumstances. I speak from experience here.

I'm not talking about the point of the post. Of course the game is unrealistic. That much is obvious and completely logical. Actual sea battles aren't so packed with action and excitement that they could be portrayed realistically in a game without the player being bored half the time or just too **** busy trying to actually sail the **** ship (which, trust me, is much harder than it looks). I'm not arguing that it's not unrealistic, I'm arguing the points the OP is making. You're right, there won't be such localized winds (though there can be, especially in those weather conditions), but that wasn't the point the OP was making. The OP literally said: "the wind normally blows in one direction at a time", which is just plain wrong. That's what I was arguing, nothing more. Winds can blow from varying directions both at the same time as well as alternating. Ships don't need wind constantly blowing in the same direction to move them forward. There's this thing called momentum.

Sid Meier's pirates is a joke. It doesn't suddenly get more realistic if you throw in a little wind. Sailing is a very complicated thing to do, especially with ships like these. It requires patience, a lot of skill in both the technique of sailing itself and in map reading, and a whole lot of luck, especially in a naval battle during a **** storm. The way Ubi did this is actually quite perfect. It keeps the gameplay simple and everything fluent enough to keep it action packed, just like with the musket reload time. It still gives you the feeling that you're actually sailing a ship. More so in fact than with any other game I've ever seen.
Do you sail? i've seen a picture of you sat near some boats, so i was wondering if you actually used them.

I thought waves just follow the tide, which i thought was generated by currents and the moon, and therefore wind is generated by the waves, and pressure differences?

LightRey
06-09-2012, 02:09 PM
Do you sail? i've seen a picture of you sat near some boats, so i was wondering if you actually used them.

I thought waves just follow the tide, which i thought was generated by currents and the moon, and therefore wind is generated by the waves, and pressure differences?
I do sometimes, but that picture didn't have much to do with it. xD
My parents own a yacht and as a kid I used to have an Optimist (a dinghy with a sail). I don't go as often anymore as I've gotten a little bored with it, but over the years I've done quite a lot of sailing.

Waves (aside from tidal waves and tsunamis, or waves generated by objects in the water) are caused mainly by the wind. It basically whips up some of the water which then comes splashing down again. Tidal waves, as the name implies, are caused by the tides, but they are generally very long and not at all like the more common waves generated by the wind.

itsamea-mario
06-09-2012, 02:14 PM
I do sometimes, but that picture didn't have much to do with it. xD
My parents own a yacht and as a kid I used to have an Optimist (a dinghy with a sail). I don't go as often anymore as I've gotten a little bored with it, but over the years I've done quite a lot of sailing.

Waves (aside from tidal waves and tsunamis, or waves generated by objects in the water) are caused mainly by the wind. It basically whips up some of the water which then comes splashing down again. Tidal waves, as the name implies, are caused by the tides, but they are generally very long and not at all like the more common waves generated by the wind.

Okay.

I mean obviously if i see a picture of someone sat next to a plane, i will assume they can fly one, it just makes sense. :P

LightRey
06-09-2012, 02:20 PM
Okay.

I mean obviously if i see a picture of someone sat next to a plane, i will assume they can fly one, it just makes sense. :P
Yup. Makes total sense. I mean I have a picture of my cat sniffing a snow fort, so obviously he made it.

itsamea-mario
06-09-2012, 02:21 PM
Yup. Makes total sense. I mean I have a picture of my cat sniffing a snow fort, so obviously he made it.

clever cat.

BOATS!!

Maybe it's a magic ship?

LightRey
06-09-2012, 02:32 PM
clever cat.

BOATS!!

Maybe it's a magic ship?
nono. I have found the solution.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz0f657gu31qhvtgno1_400.jpg

obliviondoll
06-09-2012, 04:24 PM
Well, a few things there.

I'm not saying Sid Meier's Pirates! is absolutely realistic. Just that it uses more of the basic elements of realism than AC3 looks like it's doing while still being fast-paced and fun.

Also, as someone who's sailed on this:

http://www.boatbooks.co.nz/gift_cards/spirit_of_new_zealand.jpg

And as someone with an uncle who's spent several months sailing on an actual warship from before AC3 is set, I can safely say that YES, those ships COULD tack. Not as effectively as lighter non-combat ships, but they could still do it. When I said ships with ANGLED sails were able to tack, I said ANGLED sails, not ANY sails for a reason. You're right, it's not true that ANY sail allows a ship to tack, but the ships shown in the AC3 footage are designed with that capability in mind.

And the comment about waves should have been more about the water movement, I was half-asleep at the time. Sailing ships are designed to reduce the impact of water movement as much as possible. They WILL be affected by it, obviously, but they're built so they can travel against the current with a decent wind going in their favour.

freddie_1897
06-09-2012, 05:23 PM
i loved sid meiers pirates! i want them to make a second one now

obliviondoll
06-09-2012, 05:49 PM
Second one? You mean like Pirates! Gold in the mid-90s?

Or do you mean a third one, like the various remakes that came out from 2004 onwards?

freddie_1897
06-09-2012, 05:51 PM
Second one? You mean like Pirates! Gold in the mid-90s?

Or do you mean a third one, like the various remakes that came out from 2004 onwards?
3rd one, i didn't realise there had been previous titles

obliviondoll
06-09-2012, 06:04 PM
Sid Meier's Pirates! 1987 - 91, depending on which platform you're looking at.
Pirates! Gold 1993 and 1994, again, depending on platform.

And since 2004 they've been releasing updated versions of the game on XBox (original and 360), Mac and Windows PC versions, PSP, a couple of iOS versions, and others.

I have the PSP version and both the original Pirates! and Pirates! Gold running via DOSBox on my desktop PC that I almost never use for anything but retro gaming.

Track down one ofthe new version sometime. They're good.

Krayus Korianis
06-09-2012, 06:04 PM
I think taking my Ubisoft hat off, the idea of a realistic sailing simulation, would bore me..

The idea of blowing stuff up and sailing the seas as seen in the demo, excites me..


It's a little diversion from the main gameplay of the title, I'm sure they could make it 110% realistic, but would it be fun?

Last time I checked normal cannon balls don't explode in a fiery explosion, but if they do it adds to the wow factor! - that's why they do it in some films ;)


im sure there are other sailing sims, on PC, that do the whole wind, sails and weather better, so maybe try one of those if your really looking for a sailing sim?


Im very happy with what I have seen in ACIII :D

Assassin's Creed III is gonna be awesome. I don't care who you are. If they want to sail the seas and the like, there's other games like whatever it's name, it's a big war game. Total immersion into it. I like blowing things up, and the cannonballs in Assassin's Creed III that blow things up fits the bill. I love the Caribbean >.>

So with this stated, lets set sail towards the high sea, and be merry 'till we hit a squall.

freddie_1897
06-09-2012, 06:06 PM
Sid Meier's Pirates! 1987 - 91, depending on which platform you're looking at.
Pirates! Gold 1993 and 1994, again, depending on platform.

And since 2004 they've been releasing updated versions of the game on XBox (original and 360), Mac and Windows PC versions, PSP, a couple of iOS versions, and others.

I have the PSP version and both the original Pirates! and Pirates! Gold running via DOSBox on my desktop PC that I almost never use for anything but retro gaming.

Track down one ofthe new version sometime. They're good.
i bought a 2005 version for mac windows, now i have a mac that can run better illl probably use that

obliviondoll
06-09-2012, 06:18 PM
Assassin's Creed III is gonna be awesome. I don't care who you are. If they want to sail the seas and the like, there's other games like whatever it's name, it's a big war game. Total immersion into it. I like blowing things up, and the cannonballs in Assassin's Creed III that blow things up fits the bill. I love the Caribbean >.>

So with this stated, lets set sail towards the high sea, and be merry 'till we hit a squall.

I can't name a single current-gen game with realistic sailing mechanics that you play from an on-board or close-third-person view. There's Sid Meier's Pirates! which is arguably not current-gen any more (there was a version on XBox 360, but it's not significantly changed from the original XBox version, and most of the other new versions run on the iPhone and iPad), but that's top-down, and the only other games with any kind of naval combat are RTS games and that one MMO that I think might be dead already.

I don't think AC3 should be a realistic sim, but I do think there's room for one to be made. And I'm looking forward to seeing how AC3's naval aspects play out. Should be fun no matter what happens.

LightRey
06-09-2012, 06:32 PM
Well, a few things there.

I'm not saying Sid Meier's Pirates! is absolutely realistic. Just that it uses more of the basic elements of realism than AC3 looks like it's doing while still being fast-paced and fun.

Also, as someone who's sailed on this:

http://www.boatbooks.co.nz/gift_cards/spirit_of_new_zealand.jpg

And as someone with an uncle who's spent several months sailing on an actual warship from before AC3 is set, I can safely say that YES, those ships COULD tack. Not as effectively as lighter non-combat ships, but they could still do it. When I said ships with ANGLED sails were able to tack, I said ANGLED sails, not ANY sails for a reason. You're right, it's not true that ANY sail allows a ship to tack, but the ships shown in the AC3 footage are designed with that capability in mind.

And the comment about waves should have been more about the water movement, I was half-asleep at the time. Sailing ships are designed to reduce the impact of water movement as much as possible. They WILL be affected by it, obviously, but they're built so they can travel against the current with a decent wind going in their favour.
No, those ships couldn't. They have one single sail with the capacity to take advantage of it, but that would only be useful if they were trying to span a distance of several miles at least, not a few hundred meters, which is the kind of distance you see the ship traveling in a single direction during this particular sea battle. Tacking is completely useless for traveling such short distances for a ship like that, and it can't move very efficiently doing so. They're just not going to use it during a naval battle, it's pointless and most of all, the orientation of the ship during a naval battle is more important with regards to which direction to shoot, not which direction to sail in. Those sails are used as back-up, in case they don't have any wind from behind. They don't want to be dead in the water if the wind is coming from the direction they're trying to go in.

Duh! That doesn't mean it's suddenly not the most major factor anymore. The fact of the matter is that the water current is, has been and will always be a major, if not the main factor.

obliviondoll
06-09-2012, 07:48 PM
And the comment about waves should have been more about the water movement, I was half-asleep at the time. Sailing ships are designed to reduce the impact of water movement as much as possible. They WILL be affected by it, obviously, but they're built so they can travel against the current with a decent wind going in their favour.


Duh! That doesn't mean it's suddenly not the most major factor anymore. The fact of the matter is that the water current is, has been and will always be a major, if not the main factor.

So by saying "Duh!" at the beginning, you're claiming that my point is obvious (and therefore correct), but then continuing on to state that the exact opposite is true.

I don't get what you're trying to say there. Please clarify your position.

I'm saying these ships were designed to be more heavily influenced by wind than by the ocean currents. I'm also saying that means they'll be more heavily influenced by the wind than by the water.
Your reply is basically saying "yes, that's obvious, but it's wrong" - which obviously makes no sense. Can I have a real answer please?

Rakudaton
06-09-2012, 08:03 PM
So by saying "Duh!" at the beginning, you're claiming that my point is obvious (and therefore correct), but then continuing on to state that the exact opposite is true.

I don't get what you're trying to say there. Please clarify your position.

I'm saying these ships were designed to be more heavily influenced by wind than by the ocean currents. I'm also saying that means they'll be more heavily influenced by the wind than by the water.
Your reply is basically saying "yes, that's obvious, but it's wrong" - which obviously makes no sense. Can I have a real answer please?

He's saying "duh" in response to what you actually said: that ships are designed to minimise the impact of the currents. He's simply disagreeing with your conclusion from that premise, that this means the currents are no longer the major factor.

Stop being deliberately obtuse. I have no idea which of you is right, but what he said is pretty clear.

obliviondoll
06-09-2012, 08:19 PM
OK. That makes sense. I wasn't being deliberately obtuse though, I honestly didn't get that from what he said.

And I'm not saying that water movement isn't "a" major factor, I'm saying that it isn't "the" major factor. There are two major factors, wind and water, and sailing ships are specifically designed to make wind the dominant factor for those specific vessels.

Assassin_M
06-09-2012, 08:20 PM
you... YOU INTELLIGENT FREAKS !!

itsamea-mario
06-09-2012, 08:25 PM
you... YOU INTELLIGENT FREAKS !!

Me and you can have a dumb people debate if you want?

Calvarok
06-09-2012, 10:24 PM
Because a realistically controlling sailing game would feel clunky and slow. Players wouldn't understand it's realism, they'd just get pissed.

masterfenix2009
06-10-2012, 01:27 AM
Words...lots and lots of words.....

Post_Captain
07-15-2012, 08:34 AM
First of all, YES, I KNOW THIS IS A VIDEO GAME.

However, since the devs are taking all the trouble to try and MAKE the environment look realistic, they have made Connor's ship's movement unrealistic.Namely, it can outrun every other ship, and it does a 180 deg turn around the last ship in the video.


Sailing ships don't move like that. Connor's ship appears to have much the same sail capacity as the others, yet it can move faster? How? It can't capture a greater volume of wind than the other ships. I believe I saw oars at the start of the vid, but even they wouldn't make much difference. This is a deep water, keeled ship, not a relatively shallow-bottomed galley in which oars would definitely make it faster - though whether it would be faster than a keeled ship I don't know.So how can it go faster than the others?

Secondly, the wind normally blows in one direction at a time. The last ship in the vid is sailing toward them without tacking (a zigzag course required when sailing against the wind), and yet Connor's ship can fly up to it, blast it with cannons and then do a 180 degree turn around it at speed? It's a sailing ship, NOT a speed boat.


I'm sorry, I know everyone seems to be excited about the naval battle but to me they have failed on this one. It will probably be that I'll just have to ignore the wrongness, but it's kind of spoiled it for me.
And for the trolls: my opinion, even if it differs to yours, is every bit as valid. :P

I tend to agree with most of that... However, Connor's ship would easily be able to outrun the other vessels. The shape of the hull under the waterline can be the difference between five knotts and fourteen knotts., depending on the hull's hydrodynamic properties.

As for the above:
You are correct; sailing vessels are designed to be influenced the most by the wind. Currents can certainly affect a vessels movements, but only in extreme cases, such as the occasional tides in the Strait of Magellan, will they exert a greater influence than the wind.


If it worked like a normal boat, I would die of boredom
You obviously haven't sailed a square-rigger in a thirty knott gale.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-15-2012, 08:37 AM
Here we go again, the same ''IT IS SO FAST!!!!''
Ships in real life are bloody slow and clunky. There is a limit to realism, nobody would understand ''Aha! they are making the game realistic!'' but rather get pissed off and drop the controller.
There is a limit to realism. This is one of them.
Let me ask you people, why dont you complain about the Haystacks? or Leap of Faith?

Slayer_WTF
07-15-2012, 08:44 AM
Hutchinson says that they did so to make them faster, just because like in real life would have been too slow.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-15-2012, 08:45 AM
Yeah. Too slow infact, not everybody wants to move 10 miles per hour.

Post_Captain
07-15-2012, 09:04 AM
Here we go again, the same ''IT IS SO FAST!!!!''
Ships in real life are bloody slow and clunky. There is a limit to realism, nobody would understand ''Aha! they are making the game realistic!'' but rather get pissed off and drop the controller.
There is a limit to realism. This is one of them.
Let me ask you people, why dont you complain about the Haystacks? or Leap of Faith?

I'm not complaining about the speed in that post; I'm merely correcting some common misconceptions. It's obvious that you are painfully ignorant about the vessels' handing characteristics. Most sailing vessels are not clunky at all, and can make up to twenty two knotts. What most people fail to realize is that making the vessels behave like power boats takes away a very entertaining aspect of naval combat: using the wind to your advantage, outsmarting your opponent, and placing your vessel the most advantageous position to destroy the opposing ship. I don't care ifthe ships are a little too fast, but in my opinion, it was overdone to an obnoxious extent.

I don't complain about the haystacks because they don't do as much ruin the period feel of the game.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-15-2012, 09:08 AM
Uhh...yeah. Ships in real life were slow as hell.
Using the wind to your advantage...uhh, weather still has a effect in the game.
And from what I see, positioning is still a element in the Naval Combat.

Then why does nobody complain how you can block a two handed axe with the hidden blades?
Why does nobody complain how nothing breaks?
Exactly.

Post_Captain
07-15-2012, 09:38 AM
I am a crew member on a replica sailing vessel with years of experience. How qualified are you to speak on the matter? It seems to me that your experience amounts to watching Pirates of the Caribbean several times. The types of ships that would have been used in the situation presented by Ubisoft, sailed in the in the conditions shown, were neither "slow as hell," nor "clunky."

As far as the positioning... It makes no difference when the enemy simply explodes after a single broadside. As an expert on square-riggers, I didn't notice the wind doing much, although it has been a few days since I saw the video.

I suppose I'll humor you... I personally think that nobody complains about those elements of foot combat because they remain reasonably close to the realm of possibility... Certainly closer than large sailing vessels behaving like high-performance speed boats.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-15-2012, 09:43 AM
The reason why they are behaving like ''high performance speed boats'' is because it is more FUN like that. More entertaining.
And trust me, even tho ships may be in your perspective not slow, too many others, they would be to slow.
You need to sacrifice realism for fun, for more entertainment, really.
According to the devs, yes, weather will play a part in the Naval combat.
And I am not sure, but maybe different ships have different resilience.

Post_Captain
07-15-2012, 09:57 AM
I respect that point of view, but I feel it's a bit too generalized. The method of gameplay I'd prefer would be more entertaining to those who appreciate strategy games instead of action games, while those who appreciate action games would more than likely prefer the former style of gameplay. Many people are surprised to hear that sailing vessels can outpace many modern motor watercraft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28QJyU0qYoM
That might not be considered blisteringly fast by modern standards, but no one can say that standing on that deck would be boring.

I'm definitely glad to hear about the weather, though.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-15-2012, 09:59 AM
Okay, that is going fast .___.
There will still be strategy elements too it, but while also letting the action fan have fun with it. Not annihilate a entire player base :p

Kakyou-Kuzuki
08-05-2012, 06:24 PM
First of all. I agree with Post_Captain to 100%.




Uhh...yeah. Ships in real life were slow as hell.
Using the wind to your advantage...uhh, weather still has a effect in the game.
And from what I see, positioning is still a element in the Naval Combat.


As Post Captain already said it, this is not the case.




Then why does nobody complain how you can block a two handed axe with the hidden blades?
Why does nobody complain how nothing breaks?



Weapon breaking is also a bad point of the game but there are things, which are also bad (based on the information from the trailers)

- No scabbards for sabres and no sheaths for bayonets! Oh come on, even AC1 had scabbards!
- Every solider has a bayonet, which is already mounted on the muzzle of the rifle... The developers were TOO lazy to give them a proper 2nd weapon that is all
- Absolutely no signs of reloading be it firearms or cannons.
- No carrying straps for the rifles. Flintlock rifles carried by soldiers always had them.




Exactly.


What do mean with exactly? Only because nobody raised their voice in this forum doesn't mean that they did not complained.


Okay, that is going fast .___.
There will still be strategy elements too it, but while also letting the action fan have fun with it. Not annihilate a entire player base :p

Actually there is a concept called difficulty level. I personally do not understand why every developer thinks, that a higher difficulty level ultimately should mean that the enemies will have more hit-points and that the player will do less damage thus making combat ridiculous stupid as hell. The difficulty level actually could close the gap between the action fans and the simulation fans... But noooo....


And yes this game is somehow nice but IT HAS IT FLAWS this would be OK if the developers weren't insisting on HISTORICAL ACCURACY!! By bringing up this claim, the developers have to deliver something not just a small proportion they like but everything. The engine makes it possible and the clothes also have some details, why should there be no scabbards, when the player can see every lace on every cloth??

Assassin_M
08-05-2012, 06:28 PM
First of all. I agree with Post_Captain to 100%.




As Post Captain already said it, this is not the case.





Weapon breaking is also a bad point of the game but there are things, which are also bad (based on the information from the trailers)

- No scabbards for sabres and no sheaths for bayonets! Oh come on, even AC1 had scabbards!
- Every solider has a bayonet, which is already mounted on the muzzle of the rifle... The developers were TOO lazy to give them a proper 2nd weapon that is all
- Absolutely no signs of reloading be it firearms or cannons.
- No carrying straps for the rifles. Flintlock rifles carried by soldiers always had them.




What do mean with exactly? Only because nobody raised their voice in this forum doesn't mean that they did not complained.



Actually there is a concept called difficulty level. I personally do not understand why every developer thinks, that a higher difficulty level ultimately should mean that the enemies will have more hit-points and that the player will do less damage thus making combat ridiculous stupid as hell. The difficulty level actually could close the gap between the action fans and the simulation fans... But noooo....


And yes this game is somehow nice but IT HAS IT FLAWS this would be OK if the developers weren't insisting on HISTORICAL ACCURACY!! By bringing up this claim, the developers have to deliver something not just a small proportion they like but everything. The engine makes it possible and the clothes also have some details, why should there be no scabbards, when the player can see every lace on every cloth??
Your Point ??

nightcobra
08-05-2012, 06:31 PM
i just imagine they set the animus to speed up certain things and tweak a few others.

to me really, i could care less about realism, it's authenticity that i'm looking for.

Assassin_M
08-05-2012, 06:37 PM
i just imagine they set the animus to speed up certain things and tweak a few others.

to me really, i could care less about realism, it's authenticity that i'm looking for.
Realism must have a limit in a Video game, there is as much realism as there should be. and also Sheaths were thrown out, because of the many Sword variations that were presented in AC II, ACB and ACR.

As for the little details He mentioned regarding Historical Accuracy, it was meant for events and not for little details that 99% of gamers wouldn't pay attention to. The cloths are very accurate, and actually New York and Boston are larger than they were during these times, which shows another instance of sacrificing realism for Authenticity and gameplay..

So yes, I agree with this Post, but disagree with the one above it, also stop bringing back dead threads..