Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Nelsons Barrel

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

464 Excellent

About Nelsons Barrel

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,490 profile views
  1. I am eager to see the steam review graphs this month. Will Gamelabs advertise as promised years ago the now released game with its precious 58% rating? Will the rating drop down as expected by me below 50 or will it even raise? How many people will actually go back and play it, if so, for how long? 2 days, 2 weeks or even 2 months? When will the server be shut down, end of this year? Next year or even 2 years? I guess only the future can tell.
  2. You can close your eyes and tell yourself that you find thousands of boats on the whole map but at the end of the day you know the truth.
  3. Steam itself shows you a graph of that.
  4. Nobody forces game developers to go early access (especially through steam store). Thats the risk you take to make money with an unfinished product. People pay, people play and people will review, while you earn cash. If you want your product to be reviewed when its finished you should simply consider to release it only when its finished. Blaming an unknown group as the bad guys because they review an early access title that you like is pretty simpleminded. It's kind of cute that you guys consider 6 reviews already a review bomb for a game that has 110 recent reviews and a total of 4051 reviews. How many of those are now actual alt accounts? Does that amount impact the overall rating that much? Don't forget, as many as negative reviews there are, there are the same amount of unhelpful oneliners that give a thumbs up just to 'counteract' the impression of a negative bombing. Those should be seen with the same judgement as negative ones.
  5. I reviewed this game already back in the days of 2016. The biggest flaw of this project was from begin the missing 'big picture' as I called it. Starting an early access title and not knowing what the actual finished product will be can't work out. You will always disappoint a chunk of your buyers and those will clearly state it out loud. The development process exactly looked like I expected it. 3 full years of going back and forth edging every single group of players resulted in lots of negative reviews and a dramatic loss of players. Only a group of hardcore players, one could call them addicts, stayed, stating their opinion of how this game has to look like, neglecting the truth that as players their opinion would always be biased to their gamestyle. A developer that might have been too close into discussions with those instead of just creating one vision, he followed some loud but actually minority opinions. Passionate critizism was answered with bans, leaving only some weird kind of people in this forum that does not replicate an actual image of the overall playerpopulation. And now we see this project becoming one of those 'never be done'-projects, developers that run out of money forcing them to sell pre-release DLCs to keep afloat, resulting into more difficulties ingame- and review-wise. Would I recommend this game? I played it a few thousand hours with multiple accounts each, I enjoyed a fair bit of this time, but was disappointed about the development changes a lot of times. Seeing a game become a huge timewaste just to promote people to stay online, selling it as some kind of content... Well, I was addicted back then too, so I didn't mind so much. But for somebody with a real life? Unsustainable. So no, of course my review is and will stay negative. Stay away from timewasters like these. Stay away from early access projects that dont state a clear roadmap for the big pictures the project shall become. For me Naval Action will stay in memory as a project in which its devs simply overestimated their own skillset to create a game people actually want to play. Creating it is more than to just prototype a combat simulator, you need knowledge in economy (ingame and real life), basic gameplay mechanics, marketing, public relation skills (how and how much do you interact with players), an understanding that the average player cannot stay ingame for 8 hours a day and the fact that MMOs are a premier league of game, most challenging and definitely not the kind of game you want to start with in game-business.
  6. My view on this after I am done with the whole Naval Action 'franchise': The communication of your beloved admin killed Legends before it actually happened to be good and killed a lot of pop on the open world one. Why? Simple: Legends was announced as a CLOSED beta to test for only guys that applied. We got the statement that progress gets wiped after this phase of development. People so applied only in this forum to the beta and got access to it. A week later people shared this 'unique' beta test key in this forums, on steam and elsewhere. Devs supported it to increase the pop. Why do you even make it close if you want people to actually test it? Do you fear overrun servers? Just time your communicees, put one in this forum a day before you put it into steamnews or so, ezpz. So people actually joined the beta. People noticed its a horrible grind. But they were aware that its just the beta and when the game is done, progres stays non-wiped, so why bother with a broken/buggy game in the first place? The biggest flaw of Legends was the unsufficient queing time, you waited a minute and still ended up in a game with just one player on the enemy team, the rest AI. Thanks that you waited a whole minute for this! Actually you could have just increased the queing time for better Player/NPC ratios, that would have solved the problem, ezpz. So people were aware of its just a PVE game and progress is not saved. So they went back to the open world game. Later a communicee arrived, telling us, Legends failed. Why? Because only a handfull guys that loved PvE actually grinded up to the first rates. All the effort taken to make a lobby based game? To the bin. Thanks. Instead of just putting in some more work and money you trashed the whole project before it even could succeed. Btw we all know you could have got in troubles with the name choice as Wargaming from where all the inspiration to this lobby-based game comes, produces a real good documentary series called 'Naval Legends'. So yeah, you looked to close but still too far towards your upcomming competitors. The open world version of this game? Still too big for too few players. And that will never change. But at least this game found a few addicts that will stay with it no matter what comes. Legends never got the chance for that.
  7. RvR in a game with stagnant playerbase is tedious anyway. There is just a percentage of players willing to RvR and at some point you have fought every single player participating in it. You know what to expect, you know your chances to win, all possible metas have been played. The 'new' is just gone and it gets repetitive.
  8. For real progress you always had to be online at least 12 hours a day with more than one account at the same time. This game was from the beginning for addicts with battles taking for 1.5 hours. More and more changes made the game even more time consuming. There is simply no chance get anything done in this game if you wanna have a real life and a job at the same time. I spent in over two and half years over 4000 hours in this. What did I most of the time? Afk sailing and netflix. Will a game like this be ever favour a bigger group of gamers? Definetly not. Be an addict and you will have some fun with this game, if you don't, don't even consider buying it.
  9. I stopped playing as the amount of online players dictate the amount of possible pvp in OW. As the devs don't design a game to make it appeal to the majority of copy owners, the online numbers drops since steam release continously with one exception of the great wipe that resulted in a big disappointment to all returning players within 2 to 3 weeks. So as no players enter the game and the old vets/addicts bash each other with DLC ships over and over, there is no real reason to hope this trend will change anytime. What this game needs is a wipe, an appealing game design for casuals and a economy that is working. And maybe, just maybe the trend could change.
  10. Eco alts are usually not end rank as you delete them to put them in other nations when the port you depended on switched flags. So yeah, the importance would have been increased in that aspect. Another aspect though is that stuff does not magically spawn anymore in ports but in OW AI traders. That might limit your dependence on teleporting through outposts all the time. See for this:
  • Create New...