Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Tenet

Server Health is a Game Design Issue

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Tenet said:

Naval Action combat + EVE-lite might be a winning combination

This is actually my vision for NA. But devs keep watering down NA so that EVE lite part is almost gone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players who play 10 hours and quit:

You want them to stay and you remove gold and xp from losing side.

Hard to understand.

...

Ships are actually more expensive now:

Calculate materials/resources + combat marks + upgrades and time that it takes to craft + the fact that you craft 1 dura ships.

Upgrades alone are more expensive than ships before.

...

EVE:

It is a niche game, no reason to copy from a game that has failed already.

Yes, it is a niche game, face the facts.  Guys I know playing it pay sub for 5-7 accounts per month.

If you are EVE veteran, big fan of EVE, well you probably know that it is more hated than loved.  No reason to copy from it.  Yes it is/was a great game for you, but for most it is utter crap.

...

Open World PvP is often or probably always criticized that is gank or zerg PvP, no competitive PvP on any level.

Testing something like signaling perk globally would be a good test.  If someone is attacked 6vs1, that one can get help.  There is a BR limit, which makes sure this does not turn to counter-gank.  That 1 should in the end get more BR than gankers, not much but should.  Still makes it possible to gank, but gives a very good change for good PvP as well.  These fights could be even visible from longer distances, to make sure people find each other and PvP happens.

I have done my nasty share of 2vs1 ganks, I admit.  I would have loved if that one could have got help, turn that to 2vs3 or why not even 2vs4.  I can accept certain level of unfairness in OW PvP.  Naval Action is just offering 6vs2 or 6vs18 scenarios.

Port Battles are 24vs24.  I know that many do not like OW PvP at all because they only like competitive PvP.

OW PvP mechanisms that create competitive/fair PvP can separate this game from all other OW PvP games, and I am pretty sure that is in a positive way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

Players who play 10 hours and quit:

You want them to stay and you remove gold and xp from losing side.

Hard to understand.

...

Ships are actually more expensive now:

Calculate materials/resources + combat marks + upgrades and time that it takes to craft + the fact that you craft 1 dura ships.

Upgrades alone are more expensive than ships before.

...

EVE:

It is a niche game, no reason to copy from a game that has failed already.

Yes, it is a niche game, face the facts.  Guys I know playing it pay sub for 5-7 accounts per month.

If you are EVE veteran, big fan of EVE, well you probably know that it is more hated than loved.  No reason to copy from it.  Yes it is/was a great game for you, but for most it is utter crap.

...

Open World PvP is often or probably always criticized that is gank or zerg PvP, no competitive PvP on any level.

Testing something like signaling perk globally would be a good test.  If someone is attacked 6vs1, that one can get help.  There is a BR limit, which makes sure this does not turn to counter-gank.  That 1 should in the end get more BR than gankers, not much but should.  Still makes it possible to gank, but gives a very good change for good PvP as well.  These fights could be even visible from longer distances, to make sure people find each other and PvP happens.

I have done my nasty share of 2vs1 ganks, I admit.  I would have loved if that one could have got help, turn that to 2vs3 or why not even 2vs4.  I can accept certain level of unfairness in OW PvP.  Naval Action is just offering 6vs2 or 6vs18 scenarios.

Port Battles are 24vs24.  I know that many do not like OW PvP at all because they only like competitive PvP.

OW PvP mechanisms that create competitive/fair PvP can separate this game from all other OW PvP games, and I am pretty sure that is in a positive way.

Saying EVE is a failed game is completely false.   That would be like saying World of Warcraft is a failed game because their are more people who hate on it than praise it.  

I do however agree with you on the topic of nothing for a loss.  There should be SOME payout for doing damage, instead of nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Saying EVE is a failed game is completely false.   That would be like saying World of Warcraft is a failed game because their are more people who hate on it than praise it.  

I do however agree with you on the topic of nothing for a loss.  There should be SOME payout for doing damage, instead of nothing.

WOW was a success, EVE was not.

If someone asks me how was WOW, I can say that I played it sometime but it was not exactly a game for me, but it was a real success story.

If someone asks me how was EVE, I tested and quit because it really was not a good game. It never sold well, but it had its HC fans that bought multiple accounts.

Edited by Cmdr RideZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

WOW was a success, EVE was not.

If someone asks me how was WOW, I can say that I played it sometime but it was not exactly a game for me, but it was a real success story.

If someone asks me how was EVE, I tested and quit because it really was not a good game. It never sold well, but it had its HC fans that bought multiple accounts.

Considering EVE was made by an indie start up company much like Gamelabs, and had NO major backing on the game.   EVE is a success, if not the most successful indie MMO in history.  

 

I know a lot of people dont like EVE but EVE is successful like it or not.   Otherwise it wouldnt have been around for over 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hodo said:

I know a lot of people dont like EVE but EVE is successful like it or not.   Otherwise it wouldnt have been around for over 10 years.

There are specific EVE minded players.  I suppose you are right, it is success in one way.  If we remove alt accounts, not sure how successful it would be then.  Some specific HC gamers bought multiple accounts, are paying sub for multiple accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact that CCP is still in business after 15 years of EVE is proof that its successful and it didn't fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

There are specific EVE minded players.  I suppose you are right, it is success in one way.  If we remove alt accounts, not sure how successful it would be then.  Some specific HC gamers bought multiple accounts, are paying sub for multiple accounts.

I guess your definition of success is a pretty high bar.  I guess Windows Operating System is a failure too.  Ford is a complete flop, and we wont even talk about Blizzard.   

Seeing as CCP has had ONE game that has been successful and that ONE game has kept that company afloat for 15 years, and aloud them to expand from Europe, to North America and even China.    I guess that is a failed project.

I would hate to be your kid....  

"Oh look Timmy got a A+ on their report card."

you- "GET OUT OF MY HOUSE I WILL NOT ACCEPT FAILURES!   YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD AN A++++ WITH A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SCHOOL SUPER!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hodo said:

...I would hate to be your kid....  

Just pointing out that there are and have been many more successful games than EVE.  If you can draw a line from there to my kids, fine.

EVE is a niche game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

Just pointing out that there are and have been many more successful games than EVE.  If you can draw a line from there to my kids, fine.

EVE is a niche game.

There is no denying EVE is a niche game.  Much like Naval Action.... BUT saying that it is an unsuccessful game is just a lie.   

And yes there are literally dozens of more successful games out there, but there hundreds more that have failed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, lets not go to extremes here. 

No, the protection of high sec space in EVE is not 100% effective and safety is not guaranteed. Don't think the goal was ever for it to be 100% safe, otherwise it would be. The goal was, though, to create areas where players could do stuff with a reduced chance of being attacked. When I played EVE, the high sec areas allowed me to learn the ropes of the game without a whole lot of concern that I was going to get jumped. Did I see people get ganked in high sec? Hell yes, but it didn't seem to me like this was something that was happening so often that new players were quitting the game in droves, and the game was populated by a few hundred die hard masochists. Despite being a niche game, EVE has a large enough population on its single server to still have an interesting game world for those who enjoy the game. 

The NPE of Naval Action sucks whale crap, where Capital Camping™ is a sport (especially on Global because the population is so bad again, it's the only way to have a decent chance at PvP). This needs to change, otherwise the OW part of this game is never going to get better, because it's number one problem is not enough people to occupy it. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you check from twitch, you can see that zerg/gank PvP does not sell.  In top 50 games there is BDO, that I assume has more content than Z&G, but which has pretty heavy Z&G?

Not too many Z&G games there.

EVE has a large population, and all guys I know are multiboxing.  They each have 5-7 accounts in one clan, which has ~10 players, that is 50-70 active accounts in their clan.  Really cannot recommend this path for Naval Action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why just saying "EVE-lite" is not enough. Let's stop talking about general things and focus back on specifics.

There are features in EVE that clearly work and can be borrowed. There are features that need to be avoided.

For example: 

Naval Action -needs-  a High-Sec area for newbies that has 0 allowed PvP, and is rank-limited to low ranks. The area needs to be empty of resources, and worthless for RvR. Perhaps that "Area" can be virtual - by making low-rank people not attackable in their missions and on their way back to repair to the closest port. This gives each account a chance to learn the game, but not allow continuous use since you eventually level out. 

Edited by Tenet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Health must start in population balance, either directly or indirectly.

If indirectly means "resource starvation due to overpopulation" then so be it.

Why not ? There are a lot of ways to write a rulebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11.08.2017 at 4:29 PM, Christendom said:

 1200+ down to 400/450?  For shame.  For the health of the server!

We are trying and trying hard to fix problems and experiment/experiment/experiment… 
yet when new people ask - should they get this game - they get this in response

http://steamcommunity.com/app/311310/discussions/1/1471967615873119233/

Its hard to bring new users when there is not a single positive voice on steam. How can you increase online when every answer to the question - "should i get it" - is "NO"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anonymous Naysayers though I can see there will be disgruntled amongst them.

Im taking a break from the PVP side as well given the need for some work but i am sure you will head in the right direction eventually.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin said:

We are trying and trying hard to fix problems and experiment/experiment/experiment… 
yet when new people ask - should they get this game - they get this in response

http://steamcommunity.com/app/311310/discussions/1/1471967615873119233/

Its hard to bring new users when there is not a single positive voice on steam. How can you increase online when every answer to the question - "should i get it" - is "NO"?

I'm going to say one of the biggest things to avoid is saying there will be a map wipe months before hand. I.e. The suggested war companies. Maybe just drop it a week before at most. 

Btw the Duncan in that link is not me🙂

Edited by Duncan McFail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Duncan McFail said:

I'm going to say one of the biggest things to avoid is saying there will be a map wipe months before hand. I.e. The suggested war companies. Maybe just drop it a week before at most.

And see a big patch / effort be wasted in a few hours because of a potential abuse that could have been spotted right away?

Most players joining are not joining to test an alpha, but rather to play a game.

And the current game on its current rules is done. We have reached the end-state, so we are leaving to come back when the development team is done on a new rule set.

The bitterness I read in many of those reviews is the fact that their rule set is not going to be put into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, admin said:

We are trying and trying hard to fix problems and experiment/experiment/experiment… 
yet when new people ask - should they get this game - they get this in response

http://steamcommunity.com/app/311310/discussions/1/1471967615873119233/

Its hard to bring new users when there is not a single positive voice on steam. How can you increase online when every answer to the question - "should i get it" - is "NO"?

Look even after burning out on this game due to basically the lack of a grander vision for the game in the long term with a mror interesting Clan vs Clan mechanic/End game content as i expressed in another post (which linked this one). I have still left my positive review up of this game.   This is due to hey i got 1000 hours out of it, the game has such potential.  I think players are jsut frustrated at the swindled oppurtunity NA had/hopefuly still has.   The game im sure is a success finacally, it is not a failure of a product.  It is the fact that the potential for such a much larger success is within the game.  Anyway, you shoudlnt be so negative to the community.  If they are being a critic, listen to what they have to say, im sure some rewviews are cancer and are ntothelpful at all.  But you have to siphon through that and try to implement  the good idea's by the community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Skully said:

And see a big patch / effort be wasted in a few hours because of a potential abuse that could have been spotted right away?

Most players joining are not joining to test an alpha, but rather to play a game.

And the current game on its current rules is done. We have reached the end-state, so we are leaving to come back when the development team is done on a new rule set.

The bitterness I read in many of those reviews is the fact that their rule set is not going to be put into play.

This is why we have testbed.  Majority of the players never even got on testbed when they announced the changes.  They just stop playign for 3-4 months until the patch came out.  While most of us that are actuall hard core testing and giving feed back got on testbed and played things out and gave feed back.  Maybe keep it like other games do and give the key out to folks that want it and you can only see the info if you are using that key and playing on the testbed.  I honestly plan to be on it for the next two weeks or so to test out Unity 5 and any new stuff to give proper feed back.

 

Oh and don't take 5 months to drop patches. Just cause your putting them on testbed doesn't mean you patching anythings if they never go to live.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin said:

We are trying and trying hard to fix problems and experiment/experiment/experiment… 
yet when new people ask - should they get this game - they get this in response

http://steamcommunity.com/app/311310/discussions/1/1471967615873119233/

Its hard to bring new users when there is not a single positive voice on steam. How can you increase online when every answer to the question - "should i get it" - is "NO"?

We are just honest. For a new player, the game is horrbiel right now. I would not bear to keep playing after the wipe if it wasnt for my redeemables and my clan, which supported me a great deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin said:

We are trying and trying hard to fix problems and experiment/experiment/experiment… 
yet when new people ask - should they get this game - they get this in response

http://steamcommunity.com/app/311310/discussions/1/1471967615873119233/

Its hard to bring new users when there is not a single positive voice on steam. How can you increase online when every answer to the question - "should i get it" - is "NO"?

If you want more new players to join, make it super attractive to start off. If they get hooked they will probably stay for a while atleast.

You could hand out redeemable ships. Make it so for the first 2 weeks they get x2 exp, etc...

Since this is a game in alpha, it dosent really matter. What does matter is the ability to test new mechanics, which right now does not give accurate results due to low populations.

Edited by Demsity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin said:

We are trying and trying hard to fix problems and experiment/experiment/experiment… 
yet when new people ask - should they get this game - they get this in response

http://steamcommunity.com/app/311310/discussions/1/1471967615873119233/

Its hard to bring new users when there is not a single positive voice on steam. How can you increase online when every answer to the question - "should i get it" - is "NO"?

I think the advice of 'No' is correct. The constant 'experimenting' results in hard earned knowledge and learning of game mechanics becoming worthless and we have to learn new stuff. I used to know what woods to use to build ships but that changed with the wipe. I have not yet even had one book 'drop' so neither have I read one, let alone collect books for a super book. I have no idea what the firgureheads do. Having to grind, grind, grind is a life stealer. This game cannot be played casually and cannot be played unless you are part of a big clan in a big nation near the centre of the map holding good resources. The grind, the grind the grind and getting sunk by PvPers when you are trying to build a decent ship - all amounts to no fun for those of us at the receiving end of PvP. Now I have to join a clan to get into a PB - bye bye. Looking forward to living my life again. The advice to not buy the game is dead on correct. It is no longer fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wynkyn de Worde said:

I think the advice of 'No' is correct. The constant 'experimenting' results in hard earned knowledge and learning of game mechanics becoming worthless and we have to learn new stuff. I used to know what woods to use to build ships but that changed with the wipe. I have not yet even had one book 'drop' so neither have I read one, let alone collect books for a super book. I have no idea what the firgureheads do. Having to grind, grind, grind is a life stealer. This game cannot be played casually and cannot be played unless you are part of a big clan in a big nation near the centre of the map holding good resources. The grind, the grind the grind and getting sunk by PvPers when you are trying to build a decent ship - all amounts to no fun for those of us at the receiving end of PvP. Now I have to join a clan to get into a PB - bye bye. Looking forward to living my life again. The advice to not buy the game is dead on correct. It is no longer fun.

A small suggestion, Don´t buy an early access alpha game if you cant handle change. Things change during a games development.

I´m a solo player, I´m not relying on a clan and I´m doing just fine. I dont grind much, nor have I.

The grind is what you make of it, the game does not require you to have all the best refits, books and ship knowledge. You can still do pvp successfully.

And I´m also a casual player, with a job, wife and one kid.

Edited by Demsity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Demsity said:

A small suggestion, Don´t buy an early access alpha game if you cant handle change. Things change during a games development.

I´m a solo player, I´m not relying on a clan and I´m doing just fine. I dont grind much, nor have I.

The grind is what you make of it, the game does not require you to have all the best refits, books and ship knowledge. You can still do pvp successfully.

And I´m also a casual player, with a job, wife and one kid.

It was not a mistake to buy the game when I did. I did enjoy it until the wipe. I am in software dev, but we work to a design and fix bugs - we don't keep changing the design and leave the bugs unfixed. 'You' might be able to do PvP sucessfully - but I have never won a PvP in nine months in the game. I have enjoyed fighting and PBs but 'I' need the extras since I am poor at PvP. Anyway, I don't care anymore. They game has gone down the drain with too many ad hoc changes. I played again tonight for an hour but it was pointless and boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×