Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sunleader

My reasons why this Game will never Succeed....

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Oh my...

DesMoines...

- click sail, click attack, have fun.

That's blablablabla enough for you master Jedi ?

or too complex ?

"click sail, click attack, have fun" can work for you, but it's not enough fun for a lot of us 

So, just to use your own words .... is this too complex to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, they started in a very unusual way. They built the roof first and put it aside. Then started with foundation , but ran out of funds and support because the roof itself is not much of use. What we see now if the foundation taking shape and we are required to fund it again(DLCs) otherwise that roof will never be used. I will say no more, but once we get the whole team working on content that NA needs badly then we will see a comeback. It could take another year at least. 

Game is good as is, but it's empty shell. This means every 2nd casual player will quit and leave a bad review. Game needs a story to become alive and live. Simulators rarely survive for a long time. 

Edited by Wind

Share this post


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

"click sail, click attack, have fun" can work for you, but it's not enough fun for a lot of us 

So, just to use your own words .... is this too complex to understand?

A lot :) for many.

See, this is the great thing about exchange of opinions, I see you aspire to a more complex simulation of the age of sail. I know others aspire to a more complex combat simulation without a care for the OW stuff. 

We are all here, hoping that our own "what works for me" comes to play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Wind said:

Simulators rarely survive for a long time. 

OMG Wind, seriously ? Get real man. Simulators survive for decades with more daily pop that your average steam game. Maybe because they are designed different and to a specific customer base.

FSX, IL-2, Rise of Flight, Falcon, DCS, ... oh my oh my... just the amount of cash devoted to FSX alone, by developers of all the airports, virtual airlines, ATC modules, and hardware leaves a Fallout4 Bethesda on the flat.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click sail, attack, have fun, yup, that definitely works for me. Not interested in contract wars, hauling imaginary resources or any of that other stuff. Combat and OW unpredictability is all I need, personally. Does me sinking a trader ship really impede a nation's ability to wage war, nope. Is an established player really taking a big loss if his/her ship is sunk? Again, no.

Most of the kills in OW have no meaning, as all the stuff is easily replaced via alts, outpost DLCs or whatever. I don't see how these 'imported' ships are any different.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Le Raf Boom said:

... an established player...

From that pov you are right. There is really no difference if a player with 6warehouses full of bits and parts loses a crafted ship or an imported.

That view can change if it's a new potential customer or a new player without that eco backup.

For them it's a gameplay changer. Ships that require nothing except real money and 3 clicks each day - bypassing eco feeding the daily meaningless slaughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

OMG Wind, seriously ? Get real man. Simulators survive for decades with more daily pop that your average steam game. Maybe because they are designed different and to a specific customer base.

FSX, IL-2, Rise of Flight, Falcon, DCS, ... oh my oh my... just the amount of cash devoted to FSX alone, by developers of all the airports, virtual airlines, ATC modules, and hardware leaves a Fallout4 Bethesda on the flat.

 

I am real. Simulators = Crumb Catchers. I am talking money here, they are on the bottom of the pyramid and always were. Simulators are for old dudes who are retired and still want to ride that train in their backyard or on PC screen. Young generation is where the money is. Content is what makes $$$. ex. Player goes and spends 100s of dollars on avatar costumes. You just made a load of cash in a day compared to your 10 simulator sales. 

Edited by Wind

Share this post


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

See, this is the great thing about exchange of opinions, I see you aspire to a more complex simulation of the age of sail. I know others aspire to a more complex combat simulation without a care for the OW stuff. 

Everyone has to care about the OW stuff, because years ago the decision for this was made, and everyone should respect that. 

6 minutes ago, Le Raf Boom said:

Click sail, attack, have fun, yup, that definitely works for me. Not interested in contract wars, hauling imaginary resources or any of that other stuff. Combat and OW unpredictability is all I need, personally. Does me sinking a trader ship really impede a nation's ability to wage war, nope. Is an established player really taking a big loss if his/her ship is sunk? Again, no.

But do you understand that there only are traders you can hunt if trading makes any sense for other people to do it? Do you understand that people would give you a good fight when they had meaningful traders to defend?

Assume loosing would matter somehow for you, say there is a kill/death ratio providing rewards at season end. Why should people not run from any unfavourable fight? 

Not caring about anything but PvP is extremely short minded, while whole PvP basically relies on everything else.

You cant just add PvP to this OW. You have to make it work somehow. And the lazy route of just forcing the gameplay you want with conquest or trading marks does the opposite.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

We are all here, hoping that our own "what works for me" comes to play.

 

Difference is that you are getting (some little pills) of what you like, we are getting (not only nothing new, but also) patches that make our experience each time worse. The final outcome is quite clear.

Edited by victor

Share this post


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

Difference is that you are getting (some) of what you like, we are getting (not only nothing new, but also) patches that makes our experience each time worse. The final outcome is quite clear.

I get the same since Sea Trials. Best age of sail combat.

OW tries to give a purpose to the combat in the grand scheme of things. 

PvP, not PvE, give the Caribbean a sense of danger, daring and heroic deeds.

Share this post


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

I get the same since Sea Trials. Best age of sail combat.

OW tries to give a purpose to the combat in the grand scheme of things. 

PvP, not PvE, give the Caribbean a sense of danger, daring and heroic deeds.

Danger in NA is so great that even vets are afraid to go pvp and loose ships after hours of sailing. We did not move anywhere from this reality. First what comes to mind is s*it, they are going to fight us and we are going to loose ships, instead of let's give them a fight! If Devs somehow manage to fix this then we could call it a victory. There are no daring and heroic deeds, there are ganks left and right. More numbers win. 

Edited by Wind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Wind said:

there are ganks left and right. More numbers win. 

Same in any multiplayer combat game i know of, on the air, in space, on land, in water, and on parallel universes, even with equal numbers at start, local superiority of numbers might crumble the overall plan, except when it doesn't and one guy kills four and turn the tables, same as it happens in NA. Do we even play combat games ? I mean, you will always bring local superiority in quality or numbers, be it a 'toonish moba or a full fledge milsim. 

Overcome loss feeling. It is a game. Someone will lose a combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BuckleUpBones said:

Hey OP, I like the game! that's what's missing from your rant.

 

Successes can also be measure by “Likes”! not necessary always measured by volumes.

 

 

Your Free to Like it. But if not even 10% of the Players who buy the Game actually stick to it. Then your Unfortunately Part of a very small Minority which Likes the Game. :)

Fact is. 90% of the Players who Buy apparently dont like it. And thus Discard it.

If you consider your Product a Success when 90% of the People buying it stop using it after a Short while and your Sales Drop rapidly within just 1 or 2 years. Then well. Better dont Join any Companys that Sell Physical Goods cause for these People this kind of happening would not just be a Failure it would likely Destroy their Company lol.

 

9 hours ago, Hethwill said:

100 hours of NA being an average...

That's fairly more than many put in Fallout 4, Elite Dangerous, EFTarkov, etc.

If you check data, a very little %% of players in any game will go over 100 - 250 hours.

Let alone 4000 ! 5000 ! 8000 !!!!!!!! 

 

Comparing Content Based Games where you got a Preset Story and mostly Play alone.  With an Open World Multiplayer Game that has barely any Story or Content and is Played almost entirely in Open Multiplayer... 

The Only Halfwat Acceptable Comparisson is Elite Dangerous.

 

But Elite Dangerous is just as Bad as Naval Action in this Problem.

The Difference in Elite Dangerous and the Reason why Elite Dangerous, while having the same Failure of an Open World Multiplayer as Naval Action, still has 10 Times the amount of Players that NA has. Is because Elite Dangerous Offers to just Opt out of this Multiplayer almost entirely. Thus Appealing to an FAAAAR Larger Playerbase than NA Does.

 

And Mate.

Having a Few Hardcore Nuts which Spend their Life in the Game is not exactly something I would consider Successful :P

 

10 Hour Long Game which I leave Satisfied and Happy. Is better than 200 Hour Long Game which I grinded hoping to find the Big Gold Pot and then got Dissappointed. :)

 

 

Well not that it matters.

The Thing I stay with entirely is my First Statement.

This Game needs to Decide if it wants to be an Open World PvP Arena. Then it needs to get Rid of the Absurd Grind and Level System which results in Ganking and Boredom for anyone who is not an Older Player with Fully Established Supply Chains.

Or if it wants to be an Open World MMO. Then it can keep the Grind. But it needs to Cater to the Type of Players which are actually willing to run this Grind. Thus they need to Remove Open World PvP and Create PvP Zones instead. So that the Large Grind Economy is Run by PvE Players and the PvPers can have Fun Fighting each other in Concentrated Areas where they actually find Fights.

Add some High Reward Transport Missions which lead through or into these Combat Zones and you also Cater to Piracy as you will get People which want this High Reward.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 7:05 AM, Sunleader said:

Then it needs to get Rid of the Absurd Grind

Or everyone gets to keep their ship if they loose!

The last PvP game I’ve played was setup exactly the same, 50 hours to build a T3 base only to have it destroyed by another player in a matter of seconds.

The developers never understood the gameplay of gathering resources to build something, accomplishment, and then the "total failure" of losing it all (empathy) , they stuck with their game design (good for them). However the game was successful at release, sold over million copy’s but it hasn't sustained great PvP volumes online thereafter. Most players moved on to PvE and the rest just quit.

In WOWS you get to keep your ship and it’s a very successful game, because "losers" can keep playing again and again, and that’s all that needs to happen here. Keeping the losers on board is the key, not looking after the winners!

“Keep your ship and the grind is worth it“.

Edited by BuckleUpBones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 7:05 AM, Sunleader said:

If you consider your Product a Success when 90% of the People buying it stop using

That happens for every early access/alpha game that doesn’t already have a fan base, not really a stat to judge success or to predict success.

Share this post


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

Or everyone gets to keep their ship if they loose!

The last PvP game I’ve played was setup exactly the same, 50 hours to build a T3 base only to have it destroyed by another player in a matter of seconds.

The developers never understood the gameplay of gathering resources to build something, accomplishment, and then the "total failure" of losing it all (empathy) , they stuck with their game design (good for them). However the game was successful at release, sold over million copy’s but it hasn't sustained great PvP volumes online thereafter. Most players moved on to PvE and the rest just quit.

In WOWS you get to keep your ship and it’s a very successful game, because "losers" can keep playing again and again, and that’s all that needs to happen here. Keeping the losers on board is the key, not looking after the winners!

“Keep your ship and the grind is worth it“.

Well this would in a Sense get rid of the Grind. Because most if the Grind for PvPers is about stockpiling Equipment.

So yes. This would work as well.

 

1 hour ago, BuckleUpBones said:

That happens for every early access/alpha game that doesn’t already have a fan base, not really a stat to judge success or to predict success.

 

Actually nope.

It happens for the Countless Early Access Titles which Failed.

It doesnt happen for the ones that Succeeded.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Countless Early Access Titles which Failed

I’ve only played a few hours but there’s real potential in the battle gameplay,  if they dolly-up the port UI, get rid of the shop contract system, and like everyone has mention give new players (losers) a fair go, move the game from alpha to beta soon (advertisement), then the game will have a good future, me thinks.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wind said:

This game already succeeded.

300 000 sales x $40 = 12mil

 

It doesnt feel like a game that has such revenue..expenses probably eat a lot of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Wind said:

This game already succeeded.

300 000 sales x $40 = 12mil

admin be like...

"when i finnish counting ill deploy the rest of the UI"

ladda ned.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2018 at 11:41 AM, Hethwill said:

100 hours of NA being an average...

That's fairly more than many put in Fallout 4, Elite Dangerous, EFTarkov, etc.

If you check data, a very little %% of players in any game will go over 100 - 250 hours.

Let alone 4000 ! 5000 ! 8000 !!!!!!!! 

Yes, 8000 hours.

1000 hours sitting in port and doing nothing or checking shop

1000 hours insulting and flaming people in global

1000 hours insulting and flaming people in your own nation

2000 hours afk sailing

500 hours clicking "craft" button (yes, I mean these damn rudder parts 😡)

1000 hours running away from "superior numbers of your enemies"

1000 hours of chasing your victims

500 hours of good content/figths/gameplay

 

= 8000 hours of glorious gameplay !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Banished Privateer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Wind

 

$12million total income at $40

On average Valve takes a 30% cut of STEAM sales leaving publishers and developers with 70%

$3.6mil STEAMs cut = $8.4 million

Small dev team over 4 years and running costs $3 to $5mil

 

This excludes tax. Yeah I’ll stick with Banking...

 

Norfolk.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@Wind

 

 

$12million total income at $40

 

On average Valve takes a 30% cut of STEAM sales leaving publishers and developers with 70%

 

$3.6mil STEAMs cut = $8.4 million

 

Small dev team over 4 years and running costs $3 to $5mil

 

 

 

This excludes tax. Yeah I’ll stick with Banking...

 

 

 

Norfolk.

 

 

 

 

Don't forget all copies sold on sale 30% or 50% or whatever they made them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Don't forget all copies sold on sale 30% or 50% or whatever they made them.

the game is also developed fore more than 4 years I guess

  • Like 1

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

×