Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Callaghan

'To govern is to populate'

Recommended Posts

Ok so the title of this thread is citing a moron, but the statement remains true here nonetheless. I'll be brief - 'Legends' is a winning formula, it will do great, PROVIDED game-labs don't repeat the same mistake they made with NA - a mistake that I'm not even sure they recognise. I identify the primary failing of NA-OW as a failure to populate the servers early enough in the development cycle, thus creating a vicious cycle of players logging in and playing for a few hours but not being able to enjoy the game properly, especially the PVP combat, due to low player numbers, maintaining empty servers as a self-fulfilling prophecy. These players leave for a few months or maybe for good, when they check back in a few months time the server is even less populated - all the evidence most of us need to tell ourselves that a game is dying and therefore not a good place for us to invest any more time. Game-Labs, I implore you, do some minimum level marketing and create a real 'starter' population for legends - i.e. minimum target 500 players concurrently online as an average. It's not a big target, it's easy to do, get some youtube influencers involved, get some PC Gaming sites to have another look, ANYTHING FOR GODS SAKE I IMPLORE YOU. It's so frustrating to see you chasing your tails with the minutae of development when you can't even fill the servers enough to make the game fun. Why would anyone invest time in a game, either F2P or OW, as they both require a serious time investment,  when all evidence would suggest that player numbers are in decline? You could fix this so easily. Don't repeat the same mistake again for heaven's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be a f2p battle arena, it'll get 1k+ population alone because it exist. There's literally nothing they could do to mess up NAL, as the formula is laid out for them.

The question is how do they make NA good enough so people in NAL look at it and think "hey, that's pretty good."
 

Share this post


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

The question is how do they make NA good enough so people in NAL look at it and think "hey, that's pretty good."

 

Nothing. Different genres.

 

Oh, and there is your way to fail NAL. Trying to make it a NA recruiting platform.

Edited by Galileus
Wit attack

Share this post


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

 

Nothing. Different genres.

 

Oh, and there is your way to fail NAL. Trying to make it a NA recruiting platform.

It will be, it's the MMO version of the soon to be best age of sail F2P arena type game on steam :D

But no one is gonna make the leap over for the MMO version if it doesn't hold up. Currently PVP global server doesn't hold up on its own, and although EU PVP still retains 500 players, it struggled to grow and keep players engaged with RVR alone. OW need an over haul, the water is 70% of the map, that's a lot of battlefield to fight over.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

It will be, it's the MMO version of the soon to be best age of sail F2P arena type game on steam :D

 

Just like Doom 2016 is the shooting version of Dear Esther.

 

They share the combat system. They are no more versions of each other as Battlerite is a version of World of Warcraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Callaghan said:

I identify the primary failing of NA-OW as a failure to populate the servers early enough in the development cycle

I wonder at this. I remember tons of people trying it out at EA release, they even had to open new servers and make queues. You know this, you were here even before me. We expected a certain drop in population after the initial frenzy, but did we lose more than necessary and why?

There are quite a few assumptions about why we have a (perceived) smaller playerbase than we want or need.

  • We need more PVE
  • We need more PVP
  • Eco needs to be deeper and make more sense.
  • We need less time sinks and long grinds.

These even tie into each other in some cases and players that want more PVE or PVP might not even agree on how to achieve it.

I know what would make me play OW regularly, but am I sure that's how most other guys feel?

The people I know that used to play but left during the big decline after EA did it because of the poor funPvP/ecoPvE grind ratio, notice they left well before the austerity patch. What do I know?! Maybe guys like that are a tiny minority and most people left the game because the eco wasn't deep enough and not enough PvE content?

Back to Legends...

5 hours ago, Callaghan said:

Don't repeat the same mistake again for heaven's sake.

How can they? People coming to Legends have a clear cut expectation that is easy to fulfill. With the OW game things are more complicated.

We don't have to sit on our hands and expect Game-Labs to do everything when it comes to recruitment. I do my part; I keep a certain gaming community updated on things NA and if enough guys do this it would make a massive difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird part is that what actually gave players pvp was:

1) easy access to join battles (battles where open for long durations) 

2) Medium expensive ships made a loss somewhat easy to bear and didnt cripple your efforts. (multiple duras)

3) It was easy to get a ship and sail out to do whatever you liked to do. Screen a fleet, patrol enemy waters, find a port battle (not too grindy to equip a ship and PBs where open for all. 

4) Feeling of belong to a nation meant that a lot of roles could be played. Now only accepted role is hard-core-TS-membership of a clan (talking about making a narrow game here)

I have stated this again and again and... again. But no one listen as they hate the idea of unequal PvP where they might loose. But reality is that ALL pvp is unequal. But restricting PvP on a PvP server is ridicoulous. The more fights you have the more you win AND loose. You cant have the same fun (or frustrations) if no battles occur, can you?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, fox2run said:

Weird part is that what actually gave players pvp was:

1) easy access to join battles (battles where open for long durations) 

2) Medium expensive ships made a loss somewhat easy to bear and didnt cripple your efforts. (multiple duras)

3) It was easy to get a ship and sail out to do whatever you liked to do. Screen a fleet, patrol enemy waters, find a port battle (not too grindy to equip a ship and PBs where open for all. 

4) Feeling of belong to a nation meant that a lot of roles could be played. Now only accepted role is hard-core-TS-membership of a clan (talking about making a narrow game here)

I have stated this again and again and... again. But no one listen as they hate the idea of unequal PvP where they might loose. But reality is that ALL pvp is unequal. But restricting PvP on a PvP server is ridicoulous. The more fights you have the more you win AND loose. You cant have the same fun (or frustrations) if no battles occur, can you?

It's like people forget that we had plenty of PVP when we had capitals to fight over. Now without OW objectives we have no PVP.

There are 2 types of players, players who think the game is fine, and people who've quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like that simple joining mechanisms are too hard to comprehend? In any battle-game you need to access battles somehow. I remember a lot of sailing to the message: "battle is closed". 

Its the only game, I know of, that tells its community: we actually dislike that you can participate in a battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fox2run Your heart is in the right place

20 minutes ago, fox2run said:

1) easy access to join battles (battles where open for long durations)

We have tested this a few times and it had terrible effect on OW PvP, both quantity and quality. Like I said in that other thread;  maybe it's time to do it again so post EA players can see for themselves?

27 minutes ago, fox2run said:

2) Medium expensive ships made a loss somewhat easy to bear

I agree that loss should be easy to bear as that is the only way to promote PvP on a grand scale. Ships are super cheap, so that's not the issue at all. Long PvE grinds for books and upgrades kills all hope for loss to ever be perceived as "easy to bear". One or multiple duras is a lesser and secondary concern.

 

32 minutes ago, fox2run said:

as they hate the idea of unequal PvP where they might loose.

The same people enjoy unequal PvP when they're winning. There are a few pure souls who PvP regardless and grin and bear it when ganked and tries to avoid ganking others, bless their hearts but you can't base anything on 1% or less players. "Lose" is the operative word, loss of grinding time is what evokes negative feelings and that leads to more ganking and players giving up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jodgi said:

We have tested this a few times and it had terrible effect on OW PvP, both quantity and quality. Like I said in that other thread;  maybe it's time to do it again so post EA players can see for themselves?

No. You are not remembering right. When the timers where long, we had most players online. More than 2000 prime time. Cutting timers killed the first wave of players. Disabling multiduras the second and the wipe the third wave of players. Grinding the last exhausted base. Now Theres nothing left, really. But you still wait for the next patch even if the basics are terrible boring per se.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, fox2run said:

When the timers where long, we had most players online.

 

And so there were more player online when there were less ships available. That funny thing about correlation and causation, how did it went, if I could only remember...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fox2run said:

1) easy access to join battles (battles where open for long durations) 

2) Medium expensive ships made a loss somewhat easy to bear and didnt cripple your efforts. (multiple duras)

Please... I just have to call BS here. 

1) Going back to battles that were always open would be like having a big lobby where you could just pile in and have a big scrap, completely ignoring the logics of positioning etc. Sure It may be fun as a big, jolly practise arena in NAL, but it has no place in OW.

2) Durabilites make no difference at all in terms of solving the issue you're complaining about. Ships themselves are cheap cheap cheap, what costs money (time and sweat) is getting upgrades and books. Those need to be seriously looked at, not hello kittying durabilites again.

Share this post


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

Please... I just have to call BS here. 

1) Going back to battles that were always open would be like having a big lobby where you could just pile in and have a big scrap, completely ignoring the logics of positioning etc. Sure It may be fun as a big, jolly practise arena in NAL, but it has no place in OW.

2) Durabilites make no difference at all in terms of solving the issue you're complaining about. Ships themselves are cheap cheap cheap, what costs money (time and sweat) is getting upgrades and books. Those need to be seriously looked at, not hello kittying durabilites again.

I do not agree on this. We need a living world and if the choice is between some positioning (which ca be looked at but not at the expence of the lobby-options as this is THE THING that makes a game living) and no battles at all (like now) I will always choose the first and not the ladder. 

I do not find the sailing in a ship cheap. I cannot afford the guns nor get any money out of Pve as my ship is almost getting sunked in each battles without me sinking anything. I have no counter against PVE-laserguns so Im stucked. Or...reather...just left as the rest of the guys... maybe you like realism but you also need to make a game fun for more than yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's already collapsing in on itself due to low player numbers. I think on Saturday night I saw maybe 6 players online. All because they aren't trying to get more people in. This is what happens - Player logs in, player sees low player numbers, player asks in global chat ''Where is everyone, is this game dead?', player doesn't get meaningful response explaining the situation, player logs out and doesn't return. Repeat process for every player with NA in steam. Seriously gamelabs wtf.

Edited by Callaghan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but we aren't talking 'low' population of 500-1000 players, wee're talking literally 6-12. How effective can a closed beta test be at this level. That's a rhetorical question by the way. There are so many people that want to play this game right now that don't, simply because the devs don't make it worth our time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Callaghan said:

the devs don't make it worth our time.

Testing at the current stage isn't worth anyone's time. I'm not saying it to be cute, there is a reason admin called us "victims". I want Legends to get as many players as possible and be released as soon as possible, but I don't want people to come and expect it to be worth their time before the game is ready for it. Just look at what happened after EA release of OW, people treated the game as virtually finished and started whining about every unfinished aspect of it. Imagine the forum noise if they did the free to play switch of Legends tomorrow...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Callaghan said:

Yes, but we aren't talking 'low' population of 500-1000 players

 

In that miniscule pop of 6-12 there are voices for 1v1, 2v2 and 5v5 modes, and you call 500-1000 people a low population?

 

Also, how can population be literally 6-12 people if there is regularly 30 concurrent players online eu time?

 

And if people want to play this game but don't... thats GOOD. Nothing worse than going too open with ea test builds and going too wide. The more obscure and obstructed ea is, the more "softcore" players who dont understand ea get filtered out. Going for wide appeal is good for cookie cutter arks and pubg's, notfor a niche genre that is going to see a huge rebound and wont have the carrying power to get out of early negatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 is a pathetic number, how is that a point to the contrary, and that is at peak times. Embarrassing. How effective can a closed beta test be at this level, with so few players. That's a rhetorical question by the way. There are so many people that want to play this game right now that don't, simply because the devs don't make it worth our time. The reality is this - I log in really wanting to play, I see one player in the queue and wait for more. Nothing happens for five minutes because there are only a few players online. I quit, disappointed, and find something else to play, with my sense of anticipation for Naval Action diminished further every time. 

Edited by Callaghan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So don't log in to check and skip the EA.

 

You're just like one of these people whining they cannot wrap their heads around round based RPGs and to make them live action instead. The system is not the problem, you trying to see the system as something it isn't is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a mindless response. You seem to believe that somehow an EA can exist within its own ecosystem without having any effect on the health of the final release. This is objectively wrong. Have fun with your opinions, I'm focusing on the facts that contribute to whether the game lives or dies, and that is in all of our interests.

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

×