Bad reviews due to lack of information.

[George Washington]

We are getting bad reviews due to lack of information about Naval Action Legends and no updates about UI upcoming patch in NA fuel the fire. You should know from the past that if you do not provide updates people get angry and this is that time. People are upset that NA Legends gets the work done , but NA stuck in endless loop of waiting. Note, that some people don't even know what Naval Action Legend is, why is that? Why there is no clear post from Devs that explains what is going on.

Dear Devs, I understand you are trying to make 2 games, but make sure you are very clear and provide information during this sensitive time. Reassure your customers you are working on 2 products without any delays. This includes screenshots of new UI to show people that you are working hard on NA. Clearly compare 2 games and explain work in a nice clear post. Provide updated road map. 

Once again you are ignoring the fact that people already spread the rumor of you abandoning NA and working full time on Legends. This already making your customers angry, so make sure you fix it. The easiest way to fix it is to provide some new updates on NA and prove development of NA is not halted.  

Fire has been lit, so try to extinguish it or leave it burning and see NA rating sink. There are many negative posts on Reddit that prove it. 

Thanks. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by George Washington

[jodgi]

14 minutes ago, George Washington said:

The easiest way to fix it is to provide some new updates on NA and prove development of NA is not halted. 

Admin is constantly mentioning this and that in relation to upcoming priorities, changes, patches and hotfixes. His last such post was from today. Prove it more?!

These guys spreading disinformation  know what they're doing; It's simple internet-tough-guy scorched earth tactics. Some players are mad OW isn't exactly according to their specifications and they lash out. They wouldn't stop it even if admin made an in-game pop-up at login describing current development pushes and status.

The few cases of misinformation aren't much of a problem.

[Son of a gun]

The Review system of Naval Action is a touchy subject *Grabs Popcorn*.

You are right tho, there is a problem and unsure how the Dev's can recover from the negative reviews...

I got disappointed when admin basically asked people to give good reviews and they would push out an update quicker, It shouldn't work like that. Create a game that people enjoy then you will get the reviews you deserve.

[Yngvarr]

Funny thing is that most of the bad reviews are being written by people that have barely 200 hours in the game.

 

Myself, I've got 1800+ on the counter, and i can see that development is not halted, although perhaps not at the speed it once was.

[Fellvred]

The number of reviews is tiny compared to the number of sales, especially recently. As usual it's a vocal minority which didn't get their way and is happy to write a negative review despite more than getting their money's worth. It shouldn't be up to the developers to beg for positive reviews -  if you feel the game is good go and write a review, ask clan mates to write reviews, ask nation members, ask alliance members. Frankly the review score is out of the hands of the developer at this point, it's up to the community if the score is 50% and lots of players overlook it, or the recent score is 80% and we have 3 overflowing servers on release.

It shouldn't be left to the devs to firefight misinformation on steam - they're busy enough as it is

[monk33y]

By 2020..

[Vernon Merrill]

I'll never understand how people with 2000 hours in a game can write a bad review..  Especially one where you know that its still in development.  Dont you think you've gotten your $40 worth at that point?    Jesus, if you dont like where the game is at, take a damn break, like we all have at some point.   Usually, the game will come back to a point where its enjoyable, regardless of your ply-style.

[Bart Smith]

Moaners will always moan for the sake of moaning, moan off!

[TheHaney]

I've got 70 hours in-game and am greatly enjoying myself. I'll be playing for quite a while.

That said, If I was to write a review, it would be pretty rough. I certainly don't know anyone I'd recommend the game to in it's current state.

[Hethwill]

I recommend it to anyone enjoying the age of sail era. In addition would recommend it to anyone that likes a non-study non-arcadey half-half master&commander simulator. Also if the previous ones are check as positive then anyone that wants a big huge open arena. If all three are check yes then they will enjoy NA. So so simple.

[Archaos]

17 minutes ago, TheHaney said:

I've got 70 hours in-game and am greatly enjoying myself. I'll be playing for quite a while.

That said, If I was to write a review, it would be pretty rough. I certainly don't know anyone I'd recommend the game to in it's current state.

That sounds strange, you say you are really enjoying the game and will be playing for quite a while, yet you would not recommend it to anyone, why? don't you want others to enjoy it as you are enjoying it?

The game may have its faults but if you are enjoying it then at least tell people it is still enjoyable despite its faults.

[TheHaney]

1 minute ago, Archaos said:

The game may have its faults but if you are enjoying it then at least tell people it is still enjoyable despite its faults.

I think it has obvious, glaring issues. I think the devs don't have a clear, full plan. I think the game is likely to fall flat on it's face.

I already paid my $40 and was well past the 2-hour refund mark by the time I realized it was a bad investment, so I'm enjoying what IS here despite the massive warning signs. Knowing what I know now, I would not let a friend buy the game for that amount of money in it's current state.

It's entirely possible to enjoy something while absolutely not recommending it to others.

[George Washington]

2 minutes ago, TheHaney said:

I think it has obvious, glaring issues. I think the devs don't have a clear, full plan. I think the game is likely to fall flat on it's face.

I already paid my $40 and was well past the 2-hour refund mark by the time I realized it was a bad investment, so I'm enjoying what IS here despite the massive warning signs. Knowing what I know now, I would not let a friend buy the game for that amount of money in it's current state.

It's entirely possible to enjoy something while absolutely not recommending it to others.

Nice one, at least someone is honest here. @admin take note. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by George Washington

[monk33y]

I enjoy the community I play with, enjoy the ships. Dislike how big the safezone area's..I Dislike the flip flop style of development. It's like every 6 months we get a new Dev who wants to stamp his mark on the game (while the game goes backwards)

I'll be honest I'm waiting for 3.0 in star citizen to drop.

Naval action is the only good game out now that's not boring in my opinion..

Edited November 20, 2017 by monk33y

[Archaos]

4 minutes ago, George Washington said:

Nice one, at least someone is honest here. @admin take note. 

Sorry I do not think that is being honest. If he was being honest he would tell people that despite its faults he was still having fun in the game in a review rather than not recommend it to anyone. Its the same as people with 2000 hours in the game saying the game is not worth it. How many games give you 2000 hours play for $40?

The game may have faults but it is a good game that will hopefully improve. Everyone seems to think that their suggestions to improve the game are ones that will work, but the reality is that not all of them would work. The game will always be niche mainly due to the slower paced nature of play.

[Jean Ribault]

My comment here addresses excatly what the OP says (not any periphery conversation).  I qualify my comment by saying I have about 1500 hours in (plus my son plays), and while the game has plenty of flaws and problems I still really enjoy it quite a bit, and I would recommend it to others (and have).

 

But the OP is right, the genuine problem they have is poor dev communication (i.e. lack of information).

They don't communicate anywhere even close to enough.

They respond in riddles and ambiguity to questions in this forum.

The responses on this forum are arrogant and defensive in many cases.

Entire subjects discussed on this forum, and participants, are completely ignored by dev team.  No response.

Complete and total ignore to the entire population of PVE server.  No communication there.

Dev team won't hire a fluently English speaking counterpart to flood this forum with English responses.  Change one word in an English sentence and you can change the entire meaning.  Happens a whole lot.

Blame to this community that the participants pointing out flaws in this game are responsible for the poor reviews because we didn't counter it.

Very little communication in-game to people who do not participate in this forum.

 

On and on, just poor communication.  They can only blame themselves for that IMO and stop blaming this community.  They wanted an Early Access game to get community input (I suppose)?  But then don't communicate properly with the participants.  Makes no sense.  Like I said above I like the game, but they should wake up: the populace is generally pleased and very forgiving when you have well-though-out, continuous, respectful, interactive communication from the developers (the response to this however, will be my third point above).

Edited November 20, 2017 by Jean Ribault

[TheHaney]

56 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Sorry I do not think that is being honest. If he was being honest he would tell people that despite its faults he was still having fun in the game in a review rather than not recommend it to anyone. Its the same as people with 2000 hours in the game saying the game is not worth it. How many games give you 2000 hours play for $40?

 

First off, if you're going to call me a liar make sure to tag me.

Secondly, don't assume to dictate what I should or should not do based on my thoughts.

 

There are a ton of games that I've enjoyed that I wouldn't recommend. I put thousands of hours into World of Warcraft and I sure as shit wouldn't recommend that to anybody now. I played EVE for thousands of hours and I wouldn't recommend that either. I genuinely don't know a single person that I would recommend this game to, not only because of it's lack of content, not only because of it's lack of playerbase, but because of the lack of confidence I have in it's healthy future. The devs only have 2 programmers and 2 artists and they just developed an entirely separate version of the game for monetization just to stay afloat.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am indeed having a great time in the game. But if I could stop playing and get my $40 back right now? I wouldn't hesitate. But seeing as how I can't, I'm damn well gonna get me a 1st rate and kill people in it. I want my money's worth.

Edited November 20, 2017 by TheHaney

[Fellvred]

11 minutes ago, TheHaney said:

. The devs only have 2 programmers and 2 artists and they just developed an entirely separate version of the game for monetization just to stay afloat.

A rather strange thing to say when you have no idea of their finances ^^  GL has several games (5+?) in different stages of development so I wouldn't say funding is a massive problem for them at the moment.

[TheHaney]

Just now, Fellvred said:

A rather strange thing to say when you have no idea of their finances ^^  GL has several games (5+?) in different levels of development so I wouldn't say funding is a massive problem for them at the moment.

They've specifically stated in a thread of mine that they cannot afford additional programmers, as a justification for the pace of progress.

Maybe it's not finances and they simply don't have confidence in their own product. Either way, they pulled off of Naval Action: The MMO to create Naval Action: Legends rather than monetize the MMO itself and make it more appealing to a more casual audience. To me that's a massive red flag and a major reason I wouldn't recommend the game.

[Jean Ribault]

5 minutes ago, TheHaney said:

They've specifically stated in a thread of mine that they cannot afford additional programmers, as a justification for the pace of progress.

Maybe it's not finances and they simply don't have confidence in their own product. Either way, they pulled off of Naval Action: The MMO to create Naval Action: Legends rather than monetize the MMO itself and make it more appealing to a more casual audience. To me that's a massive red flag and a major reason I wouldn't recommend the game.

They also said in a thread a while back that the game is in fine condition with plenty of incoming purchases.  (communication issue again?)

[TheHaney]

7 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

They also said in a thread a while back that the game is in fine condition with plenty of incoming purchases.  (communication issue again?)

I've no doubt! And yes communication issues abound.

My main point is that the developers had to make a decision, at some point, to take time away from the MMO to make an arena-style F2P version. Now, that arena game might end up being absolutely amazing and personally I can't wait to try it. To my eyes, though, such a decision casts doubt on the future of the MMO. Mainly because there are large issues with the MMO, plus I've gotten the impression in my short time here that the devs may have bitten off more than they are willing to chew with the MMO, PLUS it's fairly well established at this point that F2P arena games are far more profitable than MMOs.

Edited November 20, 2017 by TheHaney

[Fellvred]

Just now, TheHaney said:

They've specifically stated in a thread of mine that they cannot afford additional programmers, as a justification for the pace of progress.

Maybe it's not finances and they simply don't have confidence in their own product. Either way, they pulled off of Naval Action: The MMO to create Naval Action: Legends rather than monetize the MMO itself and make it more appealing to a more casual audience. To me that's a massive red flag and a major reason I wouldn't recommend the game.

Not really:  NA and Legends are being developed by two teams. NA was originally going to be a fully hardcore MMO but was redesigned somewhat to be more appealing to a wider (casual) audience. You would rather have microtransactions brought into the open world? 

GL have released three(ish) games so far: NA has sold well in Early Access and personally the Ultimate General games have been more interesting than the last couple Total War versions. Obviously it's your own personal opinion but I can't see why think they don't have confidence in what they are putting out.

[TheHaney]

1 minute ago, Fellvred said:

I can't see why think they don't have confidence in what they are putting out.

Over 100,000 game owners.

roughly 800 concurrent players at peak (less than 1% of owners)

Highest peak of roughly 5,000 concurrent players (5% of owners) occurred two years ago.

 

That would certainly kill MY confidence, if it was my product. But that's just me.

[George Washington]

16 minutes ago, TheHaney said:

Over 100,000 game owners.

roughly 800 concurrent players at peak (less than 1% of owners)

Highest peak of roughly 5,000 concurrent players (5% of owners) occurred two years ago.

 

That would certainly kill MY confidence, if it was my product. But that's just me.

I give them time until 01/01/18, if there is nothing new by then I am out for good and my ratings with me. I am not saying everyone should follow, but just use your common sense. I am personally just tired of waiting. They promised game by the end of 2017 and I want to see it happens. 

Happy Thanks Giving to you all. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by George Washington

[Fellvred]

18 minutes ago, TheHaney said:

Over 100,000 game owners.

roughly 800 concurrent players at peak (less than 1% of owners)

Highest peak of roughly 5,000 concurrent players (5% of owners) occurred two years ago.

 

That would certainly kill MY confidence, if it was my product. But that's just me.

Check through the rest of the Early Access titles and see how many regularly have less than 1% of their owners on at peak times, might be surprised. For a game available for two years  1% is near the top

A lot of top released games are also well below 1% (Rocket League/GTA5 etc) If the game was released now there would obviously be a surge in players but it's not ready and most of the people playing an alpha know that.