Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Mr. Doran

Tester
  • Content Count

    514
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Mr. Doran last won the day on April 13

Mr. Doran had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

715 Excellent

4 Followers

About Mr. Doran

  • Rank
    Trinco 1v1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,587 profile views
  1. Could we have it arena-based instead?
  2. How do you even begin to non-ironically wonder why the players of a f2p-arena-game do not flock to a mid-price-open-world game. Do you not understand that the very ethos of WOWs and WT are basically diametrically opposed to NA.
  3. I think you are purposely overlooking a missing piece of the puzzle here.
  4. The joke is that ROE is not going to change. No changes to the ROE will facilitate continuous action. That is a problem pretty much totally unconnected to any ROE system at this point.
  5. You can temper the high you are looking for even in an arena game by the same function of simply just limiting your playtime of combat which is essentially what you are describing in regards to OW. For me, the adrenaline and uncertainty faded for me in Sea-Trials and well before OW closed access became available to the "testers". A well designed game does not need to keep you on edge and high strung in order to be enjoyed. Even though the high had disappeared for me long ago I could play the combat model we had just prior to the introduction of structure indefinitely via the duel-room without getting bored of it. Just like Chess and Chess players, albeit I do hate the game, I do not think play for the excitement and thrill after the five-thousandth game. They play because there is an incredibly well designed game in front of them with great depth to it. There is no cheap gimmick required in order to keep them coming back. All they need and want is the game. A parallel to Naval Action in regards to the thrill and excitement factor for me is Day-Z. When I first played Day-Z and purposely try to get into as many combat situations as possible you have that thrill, excitement, and adrenaline. But of course as in pretty much all games that does eventually fade. I continued to play not to seek a high of some sort but because there is a depth to the game of finding quarries and killing them.
  6. Are we going to pretend that there are not a select amount of archetypal types of battles that you can find yourself in playing OW? Go ahead, tell me when you start finding, or more likely, ignoring the similarities. My personal experience during my years was spending probably 70%+ of my time solo-hunting. I did in fact run into the same situations continuously. Usually against someone who never stood a chance even if they were in a larger ship. The difference between me running into the same situation, fighting the same battle over and over again, is that in an arena I can fight that battle continuously without potentially needing to search it out first for three hours. Yes I know this is a "sailing" game. As much as basically having the same OW sailing model as POTBS can be seriously considered "sailing". But I would rather not do the pretend "sailing" in order to fight the same types of battle continuously. Even the time I spent group-fighting and ganking it was always the same situations time after time. But yet again, with the same "fun" caveat of wasting god knows how many hours to get a decent fight if a fight at all. There are only some many types of battles and circumstances you will commonly run into in OW... you just may be spending a lot of time to get one of the good ones.
  7. Only the community of Naval Action could possibly ever say that "continuous action" is boring.
  8. I don't think any of us arena players are entitled. If it meant paying 20 USD a month to stay away from the filth of OW I know me and quite a lot of people I have met in my time here would do it. I never understood the anti-arena sentiment on this forum. It's not as if some of the most popular games ever constructed and running today are not some form of arena game. What is worse is that most people do not realize that most of the ROE that is currently implemented is basically some form of shitty arena-lite. Even back in 2015 when it was just the instance close timer being debated and tweaked there were quite a number of people that realized the "sailing" in OW is basically just a glorified lobby with a horrendous wait time. But instead of getting good fights or at least the opportunity for so, you get the asymmetric rofl stomps you so desire over 90% of the time.
  9. You always never mention the fact that you had to start in a 7th rate. You once told me that most people on OW never got past brig before leaving so I do not think it is exactly a coincidence that the exams give you MC. The real content of this game always started at fifth rates so is it really shocking that most vets that I knew threw up in their mouths and when they saw they had to start in a cutter? You always never mention the fact that a 12-pound gun-deck Constitution could be fighting one armed with a 24-pound gun-deck either. You also never mention the fact that you admitted to the fact the first round of testing was almost purely to see what the rate of the grind would be. Obviously most players actually looking for PVP did not want to fight bots which is why you botched how combat was organized. Instead of taking the effort to get with the times and create a que with a set amount of players in a competitive format such as 5v5 or smaller you decided to go with the dirty cheap shit way of your forebearers using a mass que. You created the artificial necessity to have over a dozen players in each match with essentially no guarantee of being able to pull together the correct balance of ships. You could have made a simple champion selection type process so you could at least guarantee standardization and some semblance of balance. What should have been focused on is getting players into fun combat as fast as possible in a competitive environment rather than the generic "World of" crap that you fed us. You still to this day draw the wrong conclusions to why NAL did not draw players in. Instead of asking yourself how you could have made it better you just assume that people do not want to play it. I'm always reminded of the Andrew Lang quote, "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination" whenever this comes up. It befuddles me that you believe the combat system is not good enough to stand up to the type of environment described. It was arena and a supply of over two thousand battles on-tap that inspired me to write this. Not the promise of ganking people. Not because I had to go craft ships. Not because I had to escape from revenge fleets. 1. Whats your cost basis? a. How many instances per room? b. Could it just be used essentially as a regular lobby for 2v2s as it sounds like a full room is being paid for? 2. If there is a fee for arenas/lobbies there better not be any grinding involved. If you are going to actually offer the chance to buy instant combat it damn well better be.
  10. You underestimate how easy it would be to tweak and manage two separate CMs. This is not a costly or time consuming endeavor at this point. The idea of an arena game baiting people in to purchasing NA may be (admins) wet dream but I don't think it is a realistic one. The people who play either game types are often categorically opposed to the opposite type of game. I also do not believe many will go from having instant and fair fights with everything already grinded out to nothing in OW and gank city only at the low low cost of $39.99. It is easier to convert people tired of the OW cirucs to an arena environment than the other way around.
×
×
  • Create New...