Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About Callaghan

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

482 profile views
  1. Callaghan

    State of the game.

    Closed EA is now an excuse for letting a game gather dust and become increasingly obsolete while noone plays it? Not even enough people to test it properly? Is that what you are trying to convince yourself of? If you are going to disagree with me, you are going to have to come up with a reason as to why it is objectively better to have no one play the game during a test period, as opposed to actually having people test it. Until then, all of your 'inb4' nonsense is just adolescent rage at the fact that a customer notices a serious failing in the development model of a company.
  2. Callaghan

    State of the game.

    That's just it though, I love this game and want to play it, but I can't! There aren't enough players online to make it an enjoyable experience. One or two battles against bots are fine but it gets boring quickly. I don't care about the grind, I'm actually quite happy to max out the cutter and just have fun with that for now, but I want to play with people! How long are they going to make us wait? It's getting absurd.
  3. This is currently what the game is. 1. Log on game as I always do, three or four times a week. 2. Get disappointed and frustrated that player number has sunk even lower. 3. Open global chat, to see that every comment, every single damn day, is 'Is this game dead already'. 4. Respond in global chat 'No, but the devs don't seem to give it shit whether it does die'. 5. Log out because I don't want to wait over an hour for a playable match. 6. Realise that my interest in the game has been eroded slightly every time this happens. I doubt I am the only player whose interest is slowly being replaced by resentment at how badly this whole project has been handled, when it had so much potential. Makes me want to grab the lead dev by the collar and shake some sense into him/her.
  4. People playing the game would be a great addition I think.
  5. Callaghan

    'To govern is to populate'

    What a mindless response. You seem to believe that somehow an EA can exist within its own ecosystem without having any effect on the health of the final release. This is objectively wrong. Have fun with your opinions, I'm focusing on the facts that contribute to whether the game lives or dies, and that is in all of our interests.
  6. Currently there are thirty players on the server at peak times. I understand that the decision has been made to keep it a closed beta and I imagine that decision is final for now. Has game-labs considered the possibility, however, that most owners of Naval Action do not check the forums regularly and have absolutely no idea that they have Naval Action Legends in their steam library? I only came by the forums purely by chance, and noticed the Legends topics by chance. At that point I still didn't know it was in my steam library and I had to ask around a bit to find this out. Well no wonder no one is bloody playing it, they don't even know it exists. I'm not saying spend millions on a marketing campaign, I'm saying communicate with your existing consumers and let them know that Legends exists, you would probably increase the server population tenfold with minimal effort.
  7. Callaghan

    Hardcore Mode

    Great, but until they let players in this would just divide the currently 30 active players into two groups.
  8. Callaghan

    Open beta?

    Yes please. The game is straight up not fun, when it could be great fun, simply due to the fact that there are 30, 30! players on at peak times. Let's not mince our words, this is shit.
  9. Callaghan

    'To govern is to populate'

    30 is a pathetic number, how is that a point to the contrary, and that is at peak times. Embarrassing. How effective can a closed beta test be at this level, with so few players. That's a rhetorical question by the way. There are so many people that want to play this game right now that don't, simply because the devs don't make it worth our time. The reality is this - I log in really wanting to play, I see one player in the queue and wait for more. Nothing happens for five minutes because there are only a few players online. I quit, disappointed, and find something else to play, with my sense of anticipation for Naval Action diminished further every time.
  10. Callaghan

    'To govern is to populate'

    Yes, but we aren't talking 'low' population of 500-1000 players, wee're talking literally 6-12. How effective can a closed beta test be at this level. That's a rhetorical question by the way. There are so many people that want to play this game right now that don't, simply because the devs don't make it worth our time.
  11. Callaghan

    'To govern is to populate'

    So it's already collapsing in on itself due to low player numbers. I think on Saturday night I saw maybe 6 players online. All because they aren't trying to get more people in. This is what happens - Player logs in, player sees low player numbers, player asks in global chat ''Where is everyone, is this game dead?', player doesn't get meaningful response explaining the situation, player logs out and doesn't return. Repeat process for every player with NA in steam. Seriously gamelabs wtf.
  12. Ok so the title of this thread is citing a moron, but the statement remains true here nonetheless. I'll be brief - 'Legends' is a winning formula, it will do great, PROVIDED game-labs don't repeat the same mistake they made with NA - a mistake that I'm not even sure they recognise. I identify the primary failing of NA-OW as a failure to populate the servers early enough in the development cycle, thus creating a vicious cycle of players logging in and playing for a few hours but not being able to enjoy the game properly, especially the PVP combat, due to low player numbers, maintaining empty servers as a self-fulfilling prophecy. These players leave for a few months or maybe for good, when they check back in a few months time the server is even less populated - all the evidence most of us need to tell ourselves that a game is dying and therefore not a good place for us to invest any more time. Game-Labs, I implore you, do some minimum level marketing and create a real 'starter' population for legends - i.e. minimum target 500 players concurrently online as an average. It's not a big target, it's easy to do, get some youtube influencers involved, get some PC Gaming sites to have another look, ANYTHING FOR GODS SAKE I IMPLORE YOU. It's so frustrating to see you chasing your tails with the minutae of development when you can't even fill the servers enough to make the game fun. Why would anyone invest time in a game, either F2P or OW, as they both require a serious time investment, when all evidence would suggest that player numbers are in decline? You could fix this so easily. Don't repeat the same mistake again for heaven's sake.
  13. Ok thanks, so it's safe to grind player and crafting levels then. Good to know that not all effort will be wasted.
  14. I just got back into the game after leaving it for months, I'm enjoying the changes, but revisiting the forums has made an unfortunate truth dawn on me again. What's the point of getting really into it again if it's all going to be wiped at an uncertain point in the future? I know that some things won't be wiped (or will they?), but I haven't been able to find any clear information on what will make it through to a release build. Could anyone help me choose how to best spend my time by clarifying some of this? Should I be amassing gold? Will I lose all of my redeemable ships that I haven't claimed, with no way of getting them back? Will crafting and player level be reset? Thanks in advance.
  15. One thing that is nice about the current grading system is that it adds a bit of granularity to player progress. Levelling up and getting better ships can take a fair while if you are not willing to use exploits and or 'power play' (dishonourable nonsense for kids imo), and so have categorical variations within ship types helps add mini objectives for player progress in between the larger objectives. This is not an argument for getting rid of the current system, just a case for preserving what is good about it. In other words, please make the new system use visuals and language to distinguish between ship; varieties, as opposed to just a percentage change in the stats here and there. A bit of 'flavour' - an algorithm to generate adjectives for the ship based on the stat changes, much like loot in many RPGs ("Race built traders cutter", for example), can really help make crafting and purchasing new ships based on small changes seem a lot more significant and exciting. Colour coding according to ship strengths could also help in this regard. With the current lack of proper UI, the game in general lacks these small but important elements that all come together to make that 'hook' that keeps people playing and coming back.