Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Nelsons Barrel

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

448 Excellent

About Nelsons Barrel

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,415 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. -Stagnant playerbase, decreasing numbers -Devs not knowing what they actually want and wrong prioritizing
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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:
  7. But what will this change from what i wrote above? The game is not subscription based, so no need for devs to put more effort in to keep players paying. They deliver what you bought as EA and thats it.
  8. Every game has a certain lifetime. You can't change that fact that at some point somebody will pull the plug and the servers go down. Every game starts with a huge amount of players and soon or later players move on to different games, so the player count drops. In this regard Naval Action faces two major problems: First Naval Action is no roleplay game with individual chars you can skill and perk for special things, so you could repeat it. In this regard, Naval Action chose to be a game where every char can have the same skillbooks, crew counts and can sail all ships. So once achieved, there is nothing to grind for a second time to achieve a possible differend outcome. Pure player-based skill determines how good you are in pvp and overall in this game. Second the limited amount of so called content and its straight forward connection towards online-player-numbers. There is just so much you can do when you play alone. Kill npcs (new pve-missions just let you focus more at what to kill, but the pve game is and will be the same as before) and trade. Everything else in this game is depended on other players online. You necessarely need a player pirating your traders to make it more exciting, there is no npc who will replace that player in hunting traders. Going out and do pvp... depends on players being present and willing to fight you. And not to forget, there is no RvR/PB without players around it to screen and fight them. To bandaid the lower player numbers devs go and reduce the amount of ships in a PB by just raising the average BR of ships. This helps a bit. But they dont shrink the map nor do they force us to be closer together in one spot of the map. We already reached some playernumbers that nations can't do 2 PBs at the same time or even screen for only one PB. Remember some days with over 6 PBs each 25 vs 25 players were filled up. You won't see that happening anymore. Huge clans with over 100 active players wont be there anymore and to fix this, people started to get alts to compensate for the lack of players you could depend on. You can of course say that is because of this and that, and this must be fixed. But this is not gonna change the fate of the whole game. Naval Action started big in numbers when they released it to steam. Sadly it was an Early Access title. The devs brought to us a half baked game with many loopholes and many gamemechanics to be fixed (and some are still not fixed). And devs simply tried a lot of things that has cost a lot of devtime. Since that releaseday numbers are dropping and that is just a natural thing for every game, some take longer, some take shorter. Accept that fact, stop dreaming about a huge influx of new players because of one 'release'-state and just move on as 99% of all copy-owners already did.
  9. The real problem is that the warning pop up is static, it does not tell you what ships you gonna loose when you continue.
  10. All in basic cutters, you in basic cutter... I would call it fake OW population. Should this fee get into the live patch we gonna have a bunch of bad reviews on steam, a week later a 'content patch' with at least a reduction of the fee and we end up with even less players playing the game. I really dont know what this fee should have a benefitial purpose for.
  • Create New...