Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Nelsons Barrel

Ensign
  • Posts

    610
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nelsons Barrel

  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.

    • Like 1
  2. 23 minutes ago, springby said:

    OP & van der Decken i salute you, epic solo tanking spoiled noobs. Fake reviews is indeed a thing, not just in NA but all over Steam. This is also partly why many big companies have moved their products over to Epic's store. 

    Everyone shouldnt be allowed to write a review. Many shouldnt be allowed to play Early Access Alpha games, because they play it as if its a full release and then start to cry when game develops in a direction they disagree with. 

    I wish there was a Gaming License, only people with a certain level of gaming license would be granted to write reviews and play certain EA/alpha titles. Devs could set the level of license req. to test. But it will never happen, because majority of online users in 2019 are unexperienced pre-teens and their voice is far too great. 

    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.

    • Like 3
  3. 1 minute ago, Teutonic said:

    Except the game is still a testing alpha game according to the devs and is planned to fully release end of this year or start of next year....or so we are led to believe.

    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.

  4. 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.

     

  5. Server still runs very unstable, kicks players to playerselection, lagg on OW every few seconds and it takes some seconds to load all items and ships in port. Global chat reports it for multiple players.

  6. What never was tried was one server, one map, but split in different timezones, of course that would have cost dev time to balance it so every timezone has everything in it to fight for and not give one timezone-map-part an advantage... 

    Now move on to the part where every nation claims to have the lowest player numbers.

  7. 20 minutes ago, Christoph said:

    here a small list of your glorious victory:

    Little Cayman (was defended and we lost)

    Trinidad  (was defended and we lost)

    San Lazaro  (was defended and we lost)

    1st Corrientes  pb (was defended and we won)

    2nd Corrientes pb (only 5 player on ts)

    Santa Cruz (nobody need that port)

    Santic Spiritus (very early afternoon flip. everybody is at work)

    Cochinos (nightflip)

    Daguilla (nightflip)

    Cocdrillo (nightflip)

    Siguanea (nightflip)

    Barcos (nightflip)

    Santa Fe (we didnt have the numbers)

    Las Tortugas (nightflip)

    Sarazota  (was defended and we lost) it was for the most guys too late

    Tampa (very late pb)

    Las Sabinas (the clan simply neutralized the port)

    Hitten Hatcha (we didnt have the numbers)

    San Marcos (we didnt have the numbers)

    So first you lost a few times in the row and then you lost motivation to loose again. GG

  8. Just now, Sir Texas Sir said:

    That why it shouldn’t pay for the full price that a ship sold for and remember this is crafted ships only.

    @admin what about bringing back Co of crafted ships in battles used by other for crafters?  Give them a little something if they aren’t into the combat of the game and just the crafting and trading.  I also think do for sailing needs to go to ship knowledge so trade ships can gain Co for long hauls to unlock slots on them.

    To craft good first rates the usual clan crafts between 10 and 20 ships. All those ships that are only 3-5 will end up on the market or as roronoa mentioned as fireships. This insurance will pretty much reward you for loosing ships that way. No risks, high impact. I forsee a future of basic cutter abuse, but now with more than just basic cutters. Everything players might abuse they will abuse.

  9. Just now, Hethwill the Harmless said:

    That's a port Conquest TIMER rule. :) 

    So the clan/friendly clans decide if they don't ming to play all the time in - multiple round earth timezones -  game or just a 2 hours per day conquest game.

    Nothing to do with money sink directly. It is a indirect mechanic for "making the clan accountable for their choice".

    Even a port with no timer cost you 100k each and single day. I guess you didn't know.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...