Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Wraith

  1. I would wager $200 of DLC content that if Admin reverses his decision to wipe xp/knowledge on the War server and go back to not wiping the Peace server that we would see more long-term, and happy users six months after "release," than with the wipe. Why? Because I'm wholly unconvinced that the needle is moved at all on player retention for new and returning players by seeing others around them with different ranks or ships, and even if it is a positive effect it's not enough to overcome the deficit caused by unhappy current and past, long-term players. As a wishlister, I would be far more likely to buy the game for the first time if I saw a nice upward trend or spike in positive reviews here at the end, rather than the largely mixed and far more middling reviews that we have. And if we consider that the conversion rate of long-term players is relatively static among new buyers.. let's be kind and say the number of players still actively playing the game six months after purchasing it is 5%, the sales due to positive reviews (and self-advertising, streaming, positive posts on other fora, game sites, etc.) would outstrip some small bump in satisfaction of those casual players that might be turned off by joining a game that's been on Steam for 3.5 years and not be on an "even" playing field in terms of xp/knowledge, etc. In fact, after polling emeritus clan members whether they'll come back to the game (and buy new DLC or new alts, etc.) after the wipe the response has been pretty universal: "Did/will I lose everything I had before?" "Yes." "Is there more stuff to do and the game better than it was two years ago?" "Not really, it's different, there are more ships but there are still only a handful that are worth sailing, and there are a few more things that clans can do, but it's still basically the same game, unbalanced, etc. and it's harder to find fights since we lost small/duel rooms. And we'll all be grinding PvE for months to get our ranks back and shiplines up and running again..." "Then nah." In a game where players are the content anything we can do to increase the number of those long-term, loyal players has to be encouraged. Because it's those players who buy the $200+ of DLC, not the initial game on "release" that will provide longer term sustainability of both the game and its community. And it's those happy, long-term players, that will buy the next game from Game Labs, not trash it and warn people off of it...
  2. I think a lot of people care about the game Vernon. And watching the developers shotgun both feet off directly before release by pissing off their remaining, loyal users is not a good face to show for the type of game that needs trust and outspoken advocates instead of detractors to succeed. And it's precisely this kind of attitude that I've never understood how even half-wits can rationalize. Yes, it's pixels, so losing them doesn't equate to stealing food out of your baby's mouth (directly). But the time invested in that leisure activity is real.. and can never be gotten back. And in a grindy game like Naval Action time equates to progression, and when that progression is erased so are the aspects of the game that allow people to feel like they've spent that irreplaceable time in a way that makes them feel good. In other words: playing games for leisure is REAL life. Time, whether through some set of transactions that translates into physical or digital goods, and the enjoyment or sustenance that comes from either, is the denominator currency that you need to be focusing on here. So don't be surprised when people get bent when their time invested in any activity is disrespected. Because that's what's happening here on both the PvP and PvE servers. And it's been disrespected for no good reason, on the balance, when you're considering the pros/cons of pissing off your best advertisers, the existing user base, or some theoretical new user that might feel slighted by buying a game where the players around him already has a few more pixel ranks than they do... I'm sorry, it just makes no sense.
  3. Sadly I'm not sure we're even getting raids any more, given that we've heard nothing since the request for comment. As an aside, that had to be one of the most one-sided polls ever administered on the forum... You might conclude that such a feature as raids would be popular.
  4. I wrote exactly what I intended to say. The fact that you didn't comprehend it isn't my problem. And I clearly stated that any nation can do that, and I think it is wrong.
  5. You missed the fact that they and anyone else can attack out of any freeport.
  6. I think the impossible nations should be removed, but if they aren't then they should be given a single starting port. And if that's not going to happen, then they should only get to attack out of a free town until they own a port... If they want to let all their ports go Neutral then they can then stage out of a free port again. Archaos is right, free towns should be fine for staging raids out of but not for establishing port-flipping battles. Not for anyone.
  7. I can see that... (see my edited version above) but in general I'd rather see a few more rather than too few avenues of conquest... Mostly because if you limit the number of battles that can be generated then you limit the amount of RvR content that can be had for players. Now, for conquest and port flipping battles I'd get behind a much more limited, constrained lattice like yours, as long as raids get implemented along a more expansive set of port linkages like mine.
  8. I agree, it should be neighboring regions, not an arbitrary number. Front lines as a concept is great but we should be defining attackable ports based on proximity, not county capitals. We could have easily had this not by distance alone but based on a simple proximity/neighborhood triangulation. This would yield something like the following (please note only the most basic of coastline/barrier and distance based constraints analysis, I didn't bother to include these constraints given this was just an illustration): At larger scale: In any case, I think free ports should not allow attacks to be staged out of them, and that "impossible" nations be given a single starting port in the Gulf. I really wish the dev's would think these things through before pulling the trigger on an arbitrary mechanic, and then leaving us no time to properly test them...
  9. I appreciate your response, it's refreshing. We can debate the merits of a full wipe back and forth, and I think there are good arguments on either side (though I fall out thinking that not wiping actually protects new buyers more than hurts them since there will be less demand by vets for combat medals and rare books, etc.)... But the crux of the problem lies in those statements above, under which players mistakenly purchased the game and have been dutifully testing for over three years that I find particularly troubling. And the needless backlash and negative publicity that all of this has caused is really putting a ding in the launch prospects. And like it or not, this game will live or die based on players providing content, and with fewer players, the life of the post-launch game will be less sustainable. And no amount of grind will replace the content lost from even a couple hundred additional players over the long term. BTW, I'm barefoot too, hate shoes.
  10. I'm not calling you ignorant, but if the shoe fits: The key being this statement here: And most recently: And then after that it was encouraged that book knowledge might be preserved, which greatly encouraged people to keep playing: So if you're intellectually honest you shouldn't be surprised if feelings are strong, since testers literally have been playing under the assumption for over 3 years that some aspect of the grind they were exposed to would be rewarded by not having to re-do it. I personally bought the game in 2016 after reading that first post, knowing that even though I was testing an Early Access game my time would not be wasted. I encouraged others to do so since then based on that.
  11. I'm telling you, I and many others with some level of technical skill or access to external tools, can live just fine without F11 coords. I have a live view of where I'm at constantly. But you and any other person through either ignorance or preference, who chooses not to use Sextant, or forgets to screen grab it before they get into battle will not. And that gives me and instant advantage that I don't think I or others should have. So.. if you're willing to let those players without them suffer I'd question your intentions.
  12. But those of us with any technical ability already have external tools that give us exact map coordinates anyway, sextant perk, F11 coords, or no. So the only people that are being hurt by this are people ignorant of these techniques or new and less informed players. The thing that annoys me is that F11 coordinates amounts to one option among several that people use and like. So why remove it? Why limit people's options? It hurts literally no one because someone who wants to instantly know where they're at will be able to do so regardless of whether they're in the game. So why not just leave it in and make people happy?
  13. Literally, what problem is it solving to remove F11 coords though? Some people prefer it over Sextant, some people prefer trader triangulation for some messed up reason. Who am I to judge? But if people use each of these then why remove them just to make life harder? It certainly doesn't solve ganking or revenge fleeting in any shape of fashion (anticipating your whine about that)...
  14. lol, that's because it doesn't exist at all. It has never been spelled out in clear form anywhere so if it is ever produced in digestible form then it would be new content and worthy of being pinned, right? At one point it was the Wiki that contained good information in clearly labeled and structured format, and that has long since fallen by the wayside out of neglect, inability to log in, and simply a lack of good, stable information on how things worked. I'd suggest that instead of scrubbing the forum of any information we organize a new and updated Wiki to start compiling that information (much of which, to his credit Felix has put into his map): https://na-map.netlify.com/
  15. I'd definitely squat on BORK if I got to it first.. it should be a pirate clan anyway. I'd use the ransom I'd charge for it to fund our first three shipyard upgrades.
  16. Couldn't you just set a "defunct" flag on all clans in the database until an officer logs in from that clan, and then it becomes active again? If no one has logged in 60 days after release from any clan then the clan is deleted and its name is opened up...
  17. I guess, but compartmentalizing by "Archived" sections wouldn't prevent that info from popping up in searches.. and most forum users are looking at threads by date and would be judging accuracy based on currency anyway, no? Pinned items are there for the most important pieces of info as well... I dunno, I just think that the current forum structure is adequate, serves its purpose and doesn't need a "cleaning" just for the sake of doing it.
  18. What purpose would this possibly serve other than to hide away vast troves of procedural knowledge and history? To what end?
  19. 343. I have no doubt we'll be ranked up by one after passing the tutorial in the first couple hours. So yes, Ratts will be certainly out and about on Day 2 for the first sets of port battles.
  20. DayZ development may be a pretty adequate analogy to NA.. and if we're comparing the dynamics in player population pre- and post-release there was basically a doubling of active players after the normal post-release bump after exiting Early Access. But, DayZ populations never got back to anything like the post-Early Access release numbers, and Naval Action won't either because they suffer from the same problem of pissing off their most hard core supporters. These are the ones that would be streaming, writing reviews, creating and recruiting for clans outside the game, etc. etc., basically doing the advertising for Naval Action that there's been nothing for. And even if we optimistically double the active number of players we currently have? Color me unexcited... Will Naval Action in the end improve and become a great, balanced, sustainable game? Time will tell I suppose... 🙄
  21. Wipe only inactive clans. It's far too open to trolling by everyone and their alts, especially given the advantage that EU time zone players will have in establishing new clans on wipe day.
  22. Yup. Honestly, it would be great if the developers would offer up a "Home Leave DLC" which would allow all existing players to retain their book, ship knowledge, rank and crafting xp in exchange for leaving the game for, let's say, three months. You know.. just to make it "fair" for those new players but so they don't have to re-invest all the time they've sunk into the game. I think there'd be plenty of buyers.
  23. Except when the developers have clearly stated in the past that certain things won't be wiped... then that becomes problematic.
  24. I hope you're right. But I'm becoming more and more convinced that we're approaching this kind of moment, where anyone who has any interest in this kind of niche, ultra-masochistic game with insane PvE grind to PvP action ratios and slow pacing... they've already come, and for the most part, gone. I mean, anyone who has any interest in this kind of game either as an Age of Sail or as an MMO has heard of it already and at least given it a hard look. Steam is nothing if not efficient in this regard. Some will come back for a time but so little of substance has been added, and the balance so far out of true, that even those coming back to the game on release I fear will struggle to find reasons to stick around. Time will tell I guess, but poisoning the review well right before release probably isn't a great strategy for selling games to truly new players on Steam.
  25. It's not though. It's just one more reason we'll see a jump in negative reviews and yet more near-criminal handling of a player base through walked-back statements and lack of accurate information over the course of 3.5 years. And for those who are going on about bonuses... It's not about books and ship knowledge conferring "must-haves" on players.. It's that it's quite literally a mind-numbing grind that even some of our longest-term players have not bothered to do because it's so soul-sucking. In fact with the unbalanced (and untested) nature of port bonuses that are being rushed to release, the book and ship knowledge are almost meaningless compared to crafted ship bonuses. So having them wiped will be almost meaningless anyway. It just would have been a nice acknowledgement for long-time players, that's all. It's just about time. People invested a lot of time in testing these features and playing a game that, at Early Access release, stated that certain parts of that time investment were going to be protected.
  • Create New...