Missnaming ships?
 

Why is POTCO Miss leading players again by telling them a Frigate like ship, Aka the Interprid, is a Ship Of The Line, (Frigates got powerful, some managed to have up to 2 decks, however a Frigate is not able to withstand line fire for very long, thus it was used for other various Naval roles.) just like how POCTO miss lead players into thinking that the in game frigate is really a frigate, when clearly it is some sort of early fortified galleon. POTCO was built from the ground up so why do they have to misslabel ships?

For those of you that don't know what a regular Galleon looks like here is a model:

Sorry about the small model, Galleons grew much larger, but couldn't find a picture.

Now to Compare against the POTCO Frigate:


I would say they look almost identical, their sail Plan is exactly the same, both have wide hulls, and Raised Stern and Forecastle, and not to mention the long prow.

The Interprid "Ship Of The Line":


The Interprid can't be Fourth Rate Line ship, It's too low for one. Fourth Rates had 2-3 Gun Decks, Depending on the requirement of a nation at the time, to make it clear what a fourth rate is, for refrence:


However Some East Indiamen were almost fourth rates, and when acquired by navies of various countries, East Indiamen were given extra guns that turn them in to full fourth rates, However East Indiamen, an unusual looking fourth rate when refit, was still too big to be a comparison to the Interprid.

My conclusion, game developers have been doing this too frequently----> :buds:
So if POTCO wanted make give something extra to the update would be to properly name the new and Already existing ships.

Nuju-

We're fighting a walking skeleton with a pistol for a hand. The historical classification of ships less likely a concern for these developers...

Is this where the realism is rubbing you raw? I hope not. And I promise I'm smiling as I'm writing this - it's just a game mate.

... maybe we should all be doing this (:buds:) more lol

As many have said time and time again, this is just a game, Toa. I for one couldn't care less whether the names are historically correct. We fight creatures from Tormenta, skeletons, lights guide us on quests, we even get knocked out and/or sink on a boat, and our characters continue to exist. None of those are realistic, but its a game.

Plus.. to be more specific, it is a Disney game.. Disney is targeted towards younger audiences. Younger players tend not to care about the details.

Yeah. It's pretty much what I like to call, "Disney Logic" ( Disney's version of Nintendo Logic ). It's nice to read up on some history about our old Galleons, but this is, again, a game. It's not historically correct ( We didn't have skeletons with grenades in their hands and throwing Sidewinders back in 1632, right? ).

But, on the bright side, you looked up your facts, at least.

We don't care because we use our imagination! :Pirate3:

Obviously neither of you are paying attention to my point, POTCO started the game from the ground up, they couldn't have the the time to spend 20 minutes on a computer looking up the proper name for a ship before designing it?
Seriously, this takes hardly any Developer time, just some renaming, though it would have taken no time if POTCO would have named their ships properly from the beginning.

Who said POTCO should be Historically accurate? Nobody, but POTCO should not try to redefine ships. There is no good reason why POTCO has had to missname ships, and to add, no reason why they should have released with a completely messed up frigate design, it's simple just a long narrowish hull, easy playability, easy to Design, I see no reason why POTCO shouldn't have just junked the Current galleon replaced it with the current frigate model and then add the interprid as the new frigate.

And about the whole "POTCO is not Historically accurate" and "Skeletons don't exist in the real world", ENOUGH!!! I know it isn't and neither is POTBS completely historical either, was fighting Zombies and Ghosts, and some weird Boba Fett/Kelpbrain Boss last week on the burning sea. But, at least they spent the time to properly name the Games' ships instead of guessing.

Also might I add, POTCO is younger audience targeted, but missnaming ships in a somewhat bad influence for easily persuaded Players.

Nuju-

lol... tonaju i do have issues with people misnaming ships.. it annoys me BECAUSE im the type of person who gets confused often.....


ANYWAYS: they should remove all the ships and instead, like legos, build your OWN design from scratch using the money you have....

this is so creative and will be fun....


ok to move along with the idea...

we should design the looks, hull, armour capabllites, deck guns, broadsides, EVERYTHING!!! the whole thing

Toa,

We all get your point. You just don't get ours.

Tell it's just a game to the people who actually served on those ships around 200-300 years ago. It may just be a game, but realism is WAY better than telling people that a frigate is and a galleon is a frigate. And this game IS NOT targeted towards younger audiences it's targeted towards audiences of 10 and up and most 10 year olds have the sense to tell a frigate, galleon, sloop, and ship of the line apart if seen pictures of the ships.

Just to clarify. I said in my last post that DISNEY was targeted towards younger audiences, I never said the game itself, and that is for the most part true. Also, I never said anything about younger players lacking the ability to tell the difference, I simply said, "Younger players tend not to care about the details." By that I meant, would a younger player even mind the names being incorrect? Obviously that is not the case if the names haven't been changed in over 2 years... (and that's not limited to the opinion of the younger members of the game, if no change has occurred at all, obviously there aren't a lot of complaints from any age group).

Here we go again...

Tao, please keep in mind, while your details and points are nice and all:

• Big, realistic ships are WAY too complicated for everyday kids, let alone a Disney game. If I wanted realistic ships, I'd play PoTBS. And on top of that, I actually played PoTBS for about a week, and then left. Why? Because it was just too complicated for a pirate like me.
• They would be (at least in my opinion) less fun to sail. Realistic ships are big and slow, and you won't get as much action with them as you would with POTCO's version of ships.
• The game has developed too far down the path for them to change everything now. Can you imagine how much chaos there would be if Disney dropped a bombshell changing the POTCO ships as we know them? We'd have hundreds of 8-year olds (its quite obvious a lot of pirates aren't over the ago of 10) running around yelling "ZOMG, MY SHIP. WHAT DO I DO?! "I WANT MY SHIP BACK!" "I'M GONNA LEAVE IF THEY DON'T FIX THE SHIPS!"
• The rest of the game doesn't really follow a realistic path in the least. As EC said, we're fighting a giant skeleton with a pistol for a hand. This is somewhat of a fantasy game, mate. There just isn't a spot for an overdose of realism in the POTCO Universe.

Remember mate, its just a game, a childs one at that. Stop worrying about the details, relax, and enjoy it 8)

I know it's a game myself but Nuju may have a point.I mean in the first POTC film we had a ship-of-the-line called the HMS Dauntless,and it really looked like its kind of ship,very much like the HMS Victory here:http://www.piratesonlineforums.com/g...ta/500/victoryPart of the first movie was the 'real world' meeting the unknown realities of Aztec curses ,the myth Davy Jones was mentoned ect....I at least find the known world meeting the unknown ,dangerous, and tales of legend quite interesting.If the game is to reflect that then the 'known world' should be somewhat accurate.I may be getting a little defensive here but I'm just a jolly good fan of the historic ship-of-the-line,A real iconic vessel of the late sailing ages.
This new Ship of the Line's design first appeared in the redone Boss Battle as the new Goliath.It seemed a rather strange ship,I saw it as an odd SotL variant,I found the 'her eighteen guns' line quite humorous for the ship's size ,but alas, does it have eighteen cannons?Aye, but is has to have thay many unless the cut video comes to contridiction.
The new Fleet leading ships haven't added many.But one thing I will say is that I like this new ship,its design is quite interesting,may Nuju correct me but it seems a bit like an East Indiaman.I hope if Disney wants more large ships in the future that they make a design similer to the HMS Victory above,just a little older in style as the Victory participated in a battle against Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte of France's fleet ,which was in the early 1800's.

Nuju, i admit is very true in this case.
POTCO arises out of the film series Pirates of the Caribbean. The series takes a magical world perspective of things that happen in the real world, like Harry Potter. We might be battling a skeleton with a gun for a hand, seeing things we don't see in day to day life, but this game happens to be based during our world's history. The game ye must note, happens around 1720 not 1632, and so i don't see what's wrong with Skels having grenades.
Many people like Nuju and Bart Foulsteel have been saying this over and over.... the Ships have to none the less be named according to its design. I'd prefer if they put actual models of Sloops, Gals, Frigs and Ships o' the line in the game.
Dell, yer points be true, and taking that real ships be slow, and that we exist in a world where there is magic, the Ships can be propelled to go faster with pirates' unique style of adding on speed to ships, as well as the voodoo magic figureheads that one can buy. I'm a kid and I wouldn't find anything complicated much if they put realistic ships, but for ship customization, they simplify it for a wider market.
Sven, we do experience closed-together, fictional islands; lights to guide us for quests, stowaway happening in a few seconds, ships sailing without NPC crew, broadsides without workers on it, etc. Now that way th game is just a representation of how events actually progress. I wouldn't think that i 'whispered' a text message to a friend far off, and then teleported to him. I don't think according to my story that I visited Padres a million times ( I take it that I've gone a few times, not everyday as is portrayed in the game ). I don't take it wither that my ship launched from no where including wild islands, but instead launched from a harbor, and I also don't take it that I've been killed so many times, gone to jail somehow, launch a ship also almost so easilly, and MAINLY that I along with every pirate in the Caribbean started off with the same story from Rambleshack.
The game is just a portrayal of the functioning of your character in the story of POTC. The experience is made that we meet every movie character. However, I take my story from a realistic perspective, and not that some ray of light guided me to a place but instead told to find the place by a person.
You all see? The game is just a representation of a story, and Port Royal though an island in the game, I take it as a part of Jamaica as in the movies.I also don't take it that every pirate progressed the same story as me ( told ye before ), and that they got ships without plundering them from others, and that they have 'Voodoo staffs'.
That's why the game needs to change from a full unrealistic same-story fast progressing representation, to a not-so-unrealistic representation of the story. I want to take my boat out of the harbor, go into a real Caribbean, start my pirate's story differently, but keep the rest with us, and have magic and everything to do with the movies, in the game.
This is basically why ships of that time have to have a realistic appearance in the game, i.e, because this happens in a real world ( with POTC and magic ) history .
I am in fact going to start a thread about how they should put realism into this game, without making it complicated for kids.

Finally, I'm no longer trying to make a point in a crowd saying "No, we don't care."

I agree Herr DTP, the Movies being based off of the real worlds maritime myths and legends should be more properly interpreted by POTCO.
The Interprid does look a little Indiaman like but a tad too small (More frigate like), however, if POTCO made a few Minor adjustments, then it would be very close to a Large Indiaman
http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/...00/F2879-1.jpg,
and changing the ship to name to "Indiaman" or "West Indiaman" would be a very good idea, As the East India Companies main ship's were Indiamen, and would make perfect sense to see a big Indiaman in the Caribbean.


Though POTCO is overdone with fantisy going far beyond the Movie's Level, the game is still based upon the movie, and as we all know movies are an extension of the Real world, being so, the POTC movies all contained realistic ships, everyone of them, From the Black Pearl (Early East Indiaman) To the Dutchman (Vasa), so why should POTCO try to change that? In the POTC Movies there was really no description of ship names, however it was quite obvious to me after watching the movies hundreds of times that the Ships in the movie were all intended to be based on ships that existed 200-300 years ago, and Disney did a rather good Job of it.

First Rate Ship of the Line The Famed Noble HMS Victory:

The EITC Endeavor:




Extremely well said, and might I add a suggestion for your new thread, POTCO should have the wind factor just like in POTBS, it's not Hard to learn, I could teach a 3 year old how to sail with a wind ring in about 20 minutes, quite simply, don't point your ship into the red on the sailing chart, does it get any simpler? POTBS has a wind Ring around every Players ship, that can be toggled on and off, yellow meaning you go at a moderate speed, red directly upwind, and green in which your going fastest (Running/Broad/Beam Reach) so why not, sure a 10 year old knows, Oh I don't go into the red.



Hey, it's Toa, not Tao, I know no tao, though it sounds like some strange type of food... Right back to topic...
Anyway, by big ships what do you mean, a Frigate? Seriously it's a long narrow hull with guns on the side, exactly how is that complicated?



And exactly how is POTBS complicated, no grinding to it, the ability to capture most any ship if a Pirate, the ability to outfit your ships, and select your personal gear, Boots Gloves and other miscellaneous things. Not at all confusing if you pay attention, Boots that give you 10+ parry, and - 5 offense is not hard to understand if you take the time out of mindlessly killing things like in POTCO (Refrencing a post You stated in another thread not too long ago.) . And addilitionally POTBS is not completely full of Real ships, a few Like the Ghost ship and the Whalebone ships are somewhere along the lines of a Galleon but mostly I like them for the awesome bit of Eye candy that they add to the game.

How could sailing a really big ship not be fun? What's the point of sailing to just zip around in unimaginably fast ships that have little firepower? Big ship have many guns, it's like sailing a tank, sure their slow, but their like sailing fortesses, and I'm sure there are a few POTCO Players that like big tank like ships, and on the contrary, big ships are meant for big action, that's why their fortified, First Rate Ships of the Line, aka Men Of war were the center piece of battle, the ship that controlled the turning point of big sea battles, and who would not think being on a massive Line ship would be less fun for sailing.

Secondly, not many 8 year olds would be crying if the ships were just redesigned, avoiding trashing Galleons and frigates making Players have to buy them again. What I'm suggesting is renaming the current Frigate to Galleon, then POTCO could take the Interprid model and apply that for the new frigate model, would make much more sense, and be more realistic.

Um who cares about the land battles being realistic? I'm fine with Skeletons throwing daggers at random pirates, though players should be given a musket for various reasons, And what does Jolly Rogers Pistol/Dagger wepon have to do with renaming missnamed ships?

Nuju-

Perhaps, I should have given a more detailed response. This topic has obviously brought out some passion in some. And that passion, though well-intended, may be missing the point.

First, I personally wouldn't mind a more realistic basis for the vessels being used. But, as has been stated - they would become unweildy and too complicated for many non-gaming PCs to handle with all their details. Who wouldn't love to be able to go below decks? Etc. However, many players don't have the big 1g monster video card

But, that does not mean that the hull designs and so forth could not have had more historical believeablity. To address that argument though, I would say this. If the ships were more realistic that would look a lot more alike. The current configurations are very easy to discern. 'That's a sloop, that's a galleon'. You might be able to tell a Brigandine from a Clipper or a Sloop of War, etc. but many would not.

The basis for the current ship classes is more about elementary elements (guns, cargo or speed) than actual hull types. Any more options begin to muddy the waters. Though a few in between would not be bad (Ex. Clipper - some cargo, some speed or a Brigandine - some guns, some speed, etc.) The more you add, and the more they look the same - the more difficult it might be for younger players and of course a much larger work load for programmers.

I love the world of POTCO, but I know its not a real version of the late 1600's to early 1700's. Bruckheimer's production crews did a fine job of making a nicer, cleaner looking Caribbean from that time but even that was too much for Disney Online and our version is even more sterile, etc. I take the ships as part of that.

Considering this is a game where cutlasses look like rapiers (or some other longer straighter sword), daggers are a little longer then Roman short swords, and flintlock pistols perform and sound like semi-automatics when you load them, I'm surprised at how accurately the ships are done in POTCO. Their relative performance is very much like their historical counterparts. Also the ships are all types that could be found in the Caribbean in the time period. The sloops look like historical Sloops and the Galleons (though exaggerated) look like historical galleons. Awhile back I tried to find a picture of ship that looks like the game's frigate and couldn't find anything close. It doesn't look like a frigate but it doesn't look like a galleon either. So it is probably a made up ship, but it looks really cool. :)

One thing to consider is that playability is going to trump accuracy every time in this game. I think that the developers wanted the ships to be easy to tell apart at a distance even in low graphics mode. This may explain why the frigate looks as it does. A realistic frigate may have looked too much like a sloop.

I also believe that the designers never intended these ships to be replicas of the ships they are named for but rather to be broad representatives of different ship types. For example sloops are representative of all types of ships that are built to be fast and maneuverable above all else.

By the same token all Ship-of-the-line means in this game is a really big, bad, warship. As long as these ships add new challenges to the game I don't care what they call them. They can call them minnow class ships if they want.

Remember this game is basically an interactive cartoon based on a fantasy adventure movie which was based on an amusement park ride, so put your suspension of disbelief in high gear.

EDIt: Eliza posted as I was writing this. Let me just say then, "What Eliza said!"

Ahoy Nuju,

How many times do we have to keep having this conversation about ship types/names Nuju? You bring this up almost every month or so without fail. The ships are fun to play and each one is different enough so you can identify them easily. As you yourself stated Pirates of the burning seas has more accurate ships. Go play that game if that is what you want (sounds like you already are).

This is a Fantasy game mate and arguing over what the developers "Could" have done is a waste of time. I certainly don't want them to go back and redo everything. I don't know why you feel the need to keep pounding away at this topic over and over again. I respect your position but it seems like you just want to stir up trouble with Disney and the game here.

Like Captain C Ray said - yeah we get your position ok? It ain't gonna happen in this game ok? So either accept it or play something else.

Captain Whale

I'm not sure I would call the current ship of the line in game a impressive warship by its guncount,but if D wants to make a better one:When the time comes around again for a new giant ship just make it a 106 gun 'Heavy' or 'first rate' ship-of-the-line.Now that Nuju thinks this new ship as a frigate I say it could be a new class of frigate:the Heavy Frigate ,like the French heavy frigate Acheron from 'Master and Commander'.Not much has to be done to fix up the new SotL though:Just add cannon decks and it would be a better pass off in the near future,but leave the expedition as it is.If anyone was wondering I am listening to 'both sides' here,there could more civilness I think as well,unless I'm taking this the wrong way.

First no incivility was intended, but I can see where one might interpret it as meaner spirited then intended. I should have put a smilie in there. Sorry for any offence.

My only concern with the using of "Ship of the Line" is that it gives Disney nowhere to go if they want to put out an even bigger ship in the future. Once you have "Ship of the Line" how can you go up? Heavy frigate or Indiaman would probably be better or maybe something like cruiser. which is kind of what you said, I think. But that can be worked around when and if need be.

why not have your own ships made from lego... lol... well you know wat i mean.. just build your own... much easier and more fun

Ship of the Line was the classification of heavy warship, somewhat generic.

"A ship-of-the-line was a type of naval warship constructed from the 17th century through the mid-19th century, to take part in the naval tactic known as the line of battle, in which two columns of opposing warships would maneuver to bring the greatest weight of broadside guns to bear. Since these engagements were almost invariably won by the heaviest ships carrying the most powerful guns, the natural progression was to build sailing vessels that were the largest and most powerful of their time.

In the 17th century fleets could consist of almost a hundred ships of various sizes, but by the middle of the 18th century, ship-of-the-line design had settled on a few standard types: older two-deckers (i.e., with two complete decks of guns firing through side ports) of 50 guns (which were too weak for the battle-line but could be used to escort convoys), two-deckers of between 64 and 90 guns which formed the main part of the fleet, and larger three- or even four-deckers with 98 to 140 guns which were used as admirals' command ships."

"In naval warfare, the line of battle is a tactic in which the ships of the fleet form a line end to end. " - Both quotes from Wikipedia

So, they can create other vessels beyond the current set without worry. A ship of the line could be of varying sizes.

I was probably a little over hyped over the subject,you actually have some of the topic's best points,especially where Disney is aiming things,I didn't quite mean ye as much perhaps for being uncivil,my apologies Dan.

Eliza now has an excellent post about mutiple ship-of-the-line types,a lot of it I wasn't aware of,however it would likely best to rate them in the classic first ,second ,third and fourth gun count classes rather than Eliza's idea of different kinds of SotLs having the same title.A bit like light,standard,and war ships.(Perhaps not though ,we shall see how this goes,I don't believe Disney will make another ship of the line hull in the foreseeable future.Perhaps they will vary sizes and gun counts of the current SotL hull when they decide to make more from it.)But I would like to see ships sizes and appearences difer in the upcoming time.

Eliza, as usual your points are valid and true. Thats basicaaly what I concentrated on here, saying that Disney needs to make this game more realistic, but not so complicated as Del pointed out would hurt kids who play this game.
Dan, the game needs to be more than just much of an interactive cartoon as you pointed out it is, and it should also be more realistic ( I'll keep saying that )
While the ships need to be more realistic, its true what Dan said, that they need to differ with low graphics being around. I also believe that ship customization should not only decorate ships but also change the Hull, with various bends, compressions, lengths, etc.

lets have FULL customizatoin... i mean imagine combining the hull of a... frigate, with the speed of a sloop and the armour of a galleon.. ya know? i mean you yourself build EVERYTHING from scratch

For those of you interested in a better summary of ships and how they were in this era (and how they evolved later) try reading this concise summary. (Thank you Wikipedia.)

http://www.in-arch.net/Sqrigg/squrig.html

I really don't care about what a ship is called, just the design. It is just a minor flaw, but alot of people (like myself) just really could care less. How come when you hit an enemy they don't get cut or bruised? How come when you die or an enemy dies, they put away their weapons right before? This game is pure fiction based off a movie. I don't see any real island named Rumrunner's Isle. I haven't seen a enemy get burned to death without any burn marks. Point is, there are more things that are completely fake in this game, but the ship name deal, real ship types and names. Yes Disney could have done the real names but, people don't really care. However I do get your point.