Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Azzak

Members2
  • Posts

    181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Azzak

  1. If I may, this is not a good way to handle things like this. You're actively advertising for a negative review, while you could have just replied to the review in steam and let it be. This made it even worse. I would add steam is not a dictatorship, you can't force people to give positive review. There are a lot of people with different minds and goals, some feel frustrated and just give bad reviews for whatever reason. Not a big deal seriously, if you make a good game then overall your ratings are going to be good enough for sales. Who cares about a single review ? Of course people care if this single review attract a lot of attention, particularly if devs pick it up.... You should really hire a native english speaker with experience in community management, that kind of mistake is going to cost you far more than a bad review. You're a developer. It's not your job to handle the talking with users. Don't trashtalk, don't point specific user on public forums. Always stay calm and polite, even when users are not. People expect a studio to act like professionnals, not amateurs. If you have trouble with this, hire someone who can. Do you know how to deal with trade unions ? It's a bit the same thing than with customers. They might be insulting you each time you meet them, but you can't insult them back. This would be completely against your position as managers and you'd get fired. It's the same here. You're not a common guy paying for a game and voicing his opinion, whatever good or bad it is. You're developers of a game studio. You can't reply back like this. It is not fitting of your position. If a customer say "f** you", you can't say "f*** you". You say : "I am sorry we have not given you satisfaction, I will now ask you to leave our shop sir". Welcome to the corporate world, Game Labs lads. This is not fair, but it is how it works.
  2. What's the point of adding another money sink for production buildings and ships ? Things could be much more original and better if this was done more realistically, and not necessarly demanding in terms of micromanagement. I thought the goal of food was to increase bigger ships operating costs, and not just crafting value. We don't really need more ressources - there are enough as it is. But something that can contribute to the gameplay. - Which quality of food ? Basic food doesn't cost a lot, but doesn't provide benefits either. - Which quantity ? Filling more means they can last longer, but it takes up space in hold. - For port battles, maybe transporting food would be necessary in order to simulate the fact you need to feed a lot of soldiers. - Faction specific food ? - Ports that produce different kind of food, which can be combined to make special meals for the crew ? - Officer that have different cooking skills ? Eh we could think of a lot of things. Ultimately we could also just make "buy provisions for x days at sea, the higher number of crew the more you need. Autorefill at port unless option is not checked."
  3. I am quite disappointed. No in fact I am totally disappointed. I don't see the point why crafters should provide food. This makes no sense and adds nothing to the gameplay. Better simple system : - When buying or crafting a ship you have provisions for 3 months of travel. It is automatically bought and refilled everytime you get into port, unless you check "no resupply". Then the next time it won't resupply. If no provision for at least 15 days, you can't leave port. If ran out of provisions, all your crew actions (sailing, reloading, boarding preparation) are slowed down by 25%. Basic cutter have free food. Voilà, running costs that gets expensive for bigger ships + no micromanagement.
  4. I don't think it'll be a good idea. Labor hours are here to put a limit on how much a player can craft everday, farming does not make sense.
  5. I would also like that normal port battles should be 3rd rates, as constitutions/ingermanland fights are... weird really. These kind of ships are a bit odd and should be a rare sight, as opposed to 3rd rates being the bread & butter of any navy.
  6. I think the problem of teleporting comes from fleets of 4th rates and higher teleporting everywhere for factional warfare. Maybe you can make 4th rates and higher impossible to teleport, but allow it for 5th rates and lower ? For example make a delivery system for 5th rates and lower, where you have to pay and it takes time for it to appear in your port. BUT This can't be done for 4th rates and higher, so fleets still have to sail to take ports. What does it do ? Small groups of players can still have fun and play, players with limited time can plan ahead and use frigates and stuff where they want. However for factional warfare in big ships you have to spend time, be careful to not get spotted etc, while small frigates fleets could be deployed everywhere as long as people have outposts. That would greatly encourage the use of 5th rates in the world and stop the competition to have full santi for PVP. Maybe you want to take a port but you don't have many 4th rates nearby, so you have to do it with some 5th rates anyway. I would also put some crew adjustements : - At the end of a battle, a % of lost crew is healed. This depends of the upgrades and officers onboard. It is needed because otherwise it'd make returns to ports too frequent, especially for PVE. - The ability to give crew to other allied ships in the OW. Your ally has a lot of dead ? Give him some so he can keep up fighting. Definitely needed for both PVE and PVP.
  7. Maybe Niagara could be a glass cannon ship to make it balanced ?
  8. Thanks devs for listening to the players votes in this topic. I think this is a good compromise between those that wanted to be able to teleport more - and those who think cargo should not be teleported back to capital. However I still find that to be able to jump between outposts with santissimas ready for action close to the enemy might be a bit too cheesy - but let's see.
  9. Stop incoming fleets with disposable and suicidal 3rd rates. Surely we can imagine a better role for them
  10. A commander wouldn't have 1/2 crew marines on a SoL.... but maybe a commander of a navybrig that wants to board a bigger ship would do that ? Or a pirate frigate ? Or heck even a frigate squadron with the goal of capturing a running pirate ? The game gives you choices, that's all.
  11. I think that doing graphics improvements only for the player ship could be great, and I suppose not too much demanding. And enable options to disable them for low-end PC. Let other ships stay that way, but improve our own, subjective vision of ours : more crew, guns rolling, and animations. That would definitely improve immersion. One of the biggest thing new players say is : "why my crew consists of a few clones that are doing the same thing over and over ?" We don't care about enemy ships, but we do about ours.
  12. Thing is : it shoud not be that expensive to craft 1st rates (why should it be ?), but expensive to man them. Thus this crew system is a step in a good direction. However it would be essential that players in frigates and less DON'T lose the ability to fight because some clans decided to engage 25 santi in a PB and lost them completely, and then decided to resplenish their crew by visiting all the nations ports. (+ politics ): Clans who possess ports could also exclude all other nations players for entering them, as a manner to secure crew for themselves. So how can be not make this happen ? If the 25 santis lost it's their fault, why should they pump all crew from ports and penalize other players ? In EVE if some big corps lose their ships they lose an absurb amount of money, but it doesn't have any impact on the life of others. One way would be to have a limit on how much crew a player can get per X day.week, so one player can't take and lose 3 santis in one day. But then it's a lot of artificial restrictions. I also think that crew lost in battle should be lost in the OW. For the sake of realism keeping your crew alive is the most important thing. Of course a certain % could be wounded, healed and fit for duty after battle, but attrition should be a factor that could be interesting to implement. Sucessfully boarding enemy ships could provide much needed crew for fleets, in order to keep them fit for continuous battles. Note : to make it easier for players doing missions, we could make it so crew are lost in OW only in PVP (one enemy player in battle).
  13. That's a point. However I reckon that maintaining a server with 100-200 pop is expensive for what it is and devs will want sooner or later to optimize costs.
  14. Can we make an exception to this rule during flag wars ? If there is a big battle near flag holder, I wish that a faction can bring as many ships it can into the battle without 1,5xbr restriction. This is not about gank, but simply having more troops and better ships than the enemy. Too bad if one nation don't have that many but that's open factional warfare, not "just" PVP. So to sum up, that any ships near x meters of an allied or enemy flag holder don't have 1,5x BR restriction when it comes to entering battles.
  15. I think,if possible, that Server EU 1 should have some additional capacity, and this would allow to merge PVP 3 with it without problems.
  16. Infinite PVP Gameplay with no consequences => Warthunder,WOT etc... I'm not sure I want naval action to be like that. Play, die, retry, play, die, retry, play, die , retry.... you unlocked a new tiers ! Play, die, retry, play, die .... until you reach tiers 10. End game. Uninstall. (and people usually uninstall way before that). Should NA be like this ? No, we want an open world, we want a sandbox MMO game. We went some risks involved with fighting. We want an economy that should work with fighting, the ability to cripple your foes (to a certain extent), conquer their ports etc...
  17. Yes please, PVP MIRROR EU is empty most of the time. Copy the assets we have in PVP MIrror and put it back into PVP 1 for a better experience. (should be a choice of which character we keep though)
  18. I agree. Port battles should occur with multiple phases to allow a lot of different players to get involved. I also agree that the grind make it unbearable for new players or players with limited time. Sure for me in two months I got the a level I can enjoy quite high level ships. But steam said I have more than 320 hours on the game... who is capable to spend 320 hours on a game just to get a capable ship in PVP ?
  19. My subjective opinion on this matter : Don't make AI 3rd rates spawn and make them RARE. Because they are and should be... rare and costly to maintain ! But if you encounter them, cap as much as you want ! Issue settled. IF NOT Then make them basic. That's the minimum we can ask. Ok, take your disposable battleship, but they'll suck. A lot. Frigates shouldn't be totally useless in port battles ; just because you can cap 3rd rates at will and use them as disposable ships. When you take your 3rd rate (or any ship of the line) it must feel like you're committing yourself to high risks for a high-reward mission. It's a valuable ship that you can not afford to lose too many times. Or if you take your disposable ship, then you know you're likely to increase chances of losing but eh, no risk no reward... Status-quo is not good right now for balance and fun.
  20. So what ? Some people don't believe you're a girl. Ok, that happens. Too bad for them. And... shouldn't it stop there ? What should devs do ? How come is it in tribunal ? What is the problem ?
  21. Ok maybe I will change the title so people will read a bit more. Ok I can't change the title. Now let put faction balance away and just read the conquest overhaul please.
  22. Well even with a +20% bonus XP people won't switch factions to make them totally balanced, thus all my conquest overhaul below. And if it keeps going on players in small factions would simply stop playing, I fail to see how good it is for the game. Anyway there won't be any small factions anymore if it continues. besides, games like this usually have an incentive to make factions balanced, without balance... where is the fun hmm ? But OK, let's suppose there is no bonus XP since it seems like everyone is bitching about this single suggestion. What about the rest of my post that takes for 99% of it uh ? Have you guys even read it or just read the title and came to complain loudly like fat drunken men ?
×
×
  • Create New...