Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ampen last won the day on November 16 2013

Ampen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

45 Excellent

About Ampen

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Law, history and criminology
  1. I do see this point and I do belive it has some merit. What I'm arguing though is that an online MMO is a different type of game than a single player game, for various reasons, but where one of the main aims in my opinion would need to be player retention. Otherwise we're looking at an online game that's dead within (in this case) 3-4 months. So, comparisions should be, in my opinion, be made with another MMO. Now, I've been working with customer retention of subscriptions for 10 years albeit not computer games though, so I might be clueless here. I don't consider myself stupid though and I do know how to read, so if the wish is I leave the forums I will do so, I will however claim the emperor is naked and leave it at that.
  2. Overhaul of War & Peace mechanics and national relations, pirate role and national alliances. Long overdue, and it will also give more reason chasing around the OS and as such give a meaning to the dull sailing. Not to mention pirate role could really make this game truly unique and interesting.
  3. Might be so, what's available to see is for the game as a whole though, so it's the only certain numbers I have to crunch. Thing is it's not about us players, it's about the game. I might be wrong here, but I doubt many of us would enjoy an even emptier open sea than it can be at some times today.
  4. Well, what I'm talking about here is player retention, and as the other guy viewing it as "26% vs 74%" is just not correct, since you'd considering retention would count in +% or -%. I don't expect that fellow to understand it, I do figure you do however. In that sense, -26% is of course not good, especially for an MMO where one core concept is multiplayer. Interaction with other players is part of it, and if one quarter of the average players playing the game in the last 30 days drop out, that basically means there'll be serious problems within 2-3 months. So what it means is not that 74% of those that bought the game is still playing it, it is that from the current playerbase, there's a dropout rate of 26% on the last 30-days average. In summary, there's less people picking up this game and start playing it (+%) than there's players dropping out (-%), and in this case it's a very sharp decline. End result of that is an empty game. Just consider it. Assume the average player amount was 2500 for February, come end of March with a 25% dropout the playerbase, those actually playing the game, would then be 1875. Come the end of April, this number would be 1406 players. Same numbers for May would put us at 1054. So with a -25% retention, we'd be sitting with 42% of the playerbase left in 3 months. Still, this is made very easy, once it starts it will pick up speed as well, since as I said an MMO has a core concept of multiplay, player interaction. With dwindling numbers this will add to whatever makes player drop out, so you'll probably be looking on an ever decreasing retention, going from -25% to -26% to -27% etc. But for the sake of argument and ease of calculation I settled for the flat -25%. edit: typos, might be more of them.
  5. Alot in this game seem to be built around some players ideal solutions on old problems from other games. The zerg f.x., and that a huge map would prevent it. I do think both Sweden and France on PVP 1 pretty recently felt the zerg, so appearently that doesn't work. Why? Well, port battle mechanics are different, combat mechanics are different, OS sailing is different etc. I now want to point out I'm not making a post about zerging, I'm only using it as an example of this game being to some extent built around wishes/feedback from players. Thing is, everyone have their demons, and fear of zerg, spies, griefing or whatever will base your solution on that fear. My fear for example is an empty game. Now, setting up outposts, zergs, staying close to regions and whatnot as I see it is not an issue here, since what the OP is talking about is if the size of the map, whatever the reason for it, is costing too much. Does it cost more than the benefits are? Alot of players have left, and it's ticking, in an earlier post I wrote it was -25% last 30 days, now it's -26%. There's alot of posts about this issue. I do think it's related. Suggestions therefore about how to handle the OW doesn't do much, if anything really, since that won't affect players leaving. The approach to the problem is finding out what will make players stay. Of course, this is written out of my fear, wich is an empty game, I would argue though that considering the drop seen it's valid. So, the OW, at what cost? And will it be worth it?
  6. Your posts constantly centers around you and your gameplay. What I'm talking about is what others might experience, and that's not the same thing. Appearently everybody doesn't do, feel, play, think or belive what you do.
  7. "All these can lead to 10-20 minutes in battle without AI in which trader should show his survival skills." Yeah, we're not talking ganking here.... I really don't see the problem with this, unless of course, it is for ganking. I've never had any issues of this sort. What is asked for is basically a ticket to freely roam in the inner parts of another realm. If you catch a trader on the OS away from ports it's no issue, neither if you tag while reinforcements are available as long as you consider where other fleets are. Problem is ofc if you're roaming close to another capital.
  8. I'm not disagreeing with you, what I'm saying it actually becomes a problem of the game though due to its low player numbers. For this game to be vivid it requires more players, for this game to retain a larger amount of players (or get on the plus-side even since it's negative now) some things might need to change. It's a niche game. Either we accept the current situation wich means alot of players will sail mostly alone on a mostly empty open sea, or something is done to attract and make players stay in the game. On the teleport issue I would argue being able to teleport once every 4th hour don't give any tactical option. Strategic, maybe. As this guy says. Time of course is an issue for alot of people. Consider as well the mature audience some people advocate here. For most of that audience, me included, time is a real issue, since there's day-to-day business, kids and whatnot to factor in. Those with most time available isn't attracted to this game in a very big extent, and those who are attracted doesn't have the time needed to invest in setting out outposts, sailing to different regions etc. None of you see that as a problem? I would say this is all about low pop. Difference with Eve I suppose there's more space and science-fiction nuts out there than 18th century naval combat nuts. I belive any approach for this game towards player numbers have to be seen that way, that it is a niche game that will from the get-go attract way less players than alot of other games.
  9. What this fella says here. Thing is, for all these posts, I'd wager there's alot of players who don't post about it, they just give up. This brings us to the point of this post, at what cost? I doubt more content while sailing will make a difference in that sense, since people set sail and go sailing for a purpose. Content while sailing will mainly have an impact on those willing to invest in that tedious task to begin with. The content needed as I see it is really more players, and considering that this is really a catch 22, more players will make the open sea more vivid, but the open sea is vast enough to discourage too many, leaving to few players for it to be a vivid open sea. If you ask me, this will be a re-occuring constant issue for this game, with sailing times, lack of ability to teleport and difficulties to get to PBs/PvP or whatever. Bottom line is last 30-days players is down 25%, and continue downward. Simply stating "people aren't forced to sail" and leave it by that will just keep it running. The problem as I see it is that I suspect players pick up this game for the naval action, but realize the reality is that the action part become a really small part compared to the sailing part. People aren't forced to sail anywhere really, but they aren't forced to stick to this game either, and seem to be a pretty easy choice for some, and this is something that hurts those of us who stick to the game, and will continue to do so, since as I said earlier, a vivid OW requires more players.
  10. Well, isn't this pretty much how it works? Doesn't "Reinforcements available" occur close to friendly ports and mean friendly NPCs in the circle will be dragged in on your side, while "Protected by [nation]" drags pretty much everything friendly that sails, crawls and might float into the fight on your side? "Protected by" as far as I've seen is only available around capitals and that is what can spawn additional NPCs, and for "reinforcements" to be dragged in you don't only have to be in an area where they're available, for NPCs to be dragged in they have to be within the circle when the attack kicks in? That's as much as I've figured anyway, and in that case I'd say it fills its purpose, making it necessary to be a bit more careful around hostile ports and really puts a dent on sealclubbing around hostile capitals.
  11. Without saying too much, if I would list one reason that would make the players in my society leave the game that would probably be lengthy open sea travels.
  12. well, reinforcements are really available in the vicinity of friendly ports, so I don't see an issue at all with it, what it basically does is prevent base camping.
  13. I really can't see the issue with not having this. Not only was different aids available, sailors of this time had a complete different understanding of sailing wich we can't even use for an aid in this game, such as currents, winds etc. I do think it's beneficial especially for the new players, whatever promotes people to get out there on the OS is good, what limits them limits their experience. For that reason at least make it optional or available as long as you are able to hire fleets. As for the "navigation" as such in the game, there's really no achievement to it, so not implementing it due to "realistic" or whatever reason doesn't really cut it. The only thing it does is increase the time you have to spend on the OS for some travels as I see it. For those who still want the immersion it could be optional in that case, and if they consider it to be a disadvantage to not use that option, they can value it against the immersion or the feel of "achievement" of managing to hit a port from the other side of the caribbean.
  14. I think you missed his point. For myself as an example, I'm mainly here because I'm interested in the PvP, and as such, the idea of risk-free hauling is a non-issue, really, I'm not out to catch traders. It's not what I expect from PvP, what I expect is fighting other fighting vessels. On top of that, as a player interested in mainly PvP I also support your argument if I understand it correct, that the game should tweaked in some way to increase the chances of PvP, instead of as it is now, where it's basically down to attacking where one expects empty waters and no opposition. If I understand you correct the Open World as it is doesn't promote combat enough? If so, I'm totally with you, but I'd also like to hear if you have some ideas about it. As for the subject at hand, I do think that strict econ players might be more willing to endure long OS travel for the sake of hauling, let's face it, it's an integral part of their play: they amass the resources needed and they use those to build products and ships. For me that's looking for PvP on the other hand, OS travel and the limit of teleporting once every 4th hour is really something that limits opportunities. Considering the vast reaches of the map and the few amount of players, one bad call could really wreck your entire evening. I would also like to state that as a personal opinion, as a PvP'er I wouldn't mind taking the long OS trip as an escort for an eco player hiring me to do so. That on the other hand would probably require for me to sometimes be able to teleport a bit more often. To sum it up, I do think there's merit to disallow teleporting with cargo completely (part of eco players gameplay) while on the other hand allow teleportation without cargo completely (promotes PvP, and will as well reduce the strain of empty cargo hauls for econ players). Of course, some RvR fanatic will claim this destroys/disrupts/removes RvR, but really, I would say this game would benefit from the more actual PvP that the RvR contains, instead of vice versa. edit: clarifications and typos
  15. Look, if some players want more PvP (since that's from where I see this coming, I doubt it's out of concern of people not doing PvP to "miss out" on something spectacular) the solution would be finding ways so that more players tried this game in my opinion. Trying to implement mechanics that will in effect cap your progress unless you PvP might make more players prone to PvP in the future, but I'm pretty damn certain it will make others drop out. As such it's a horrible idea in my opinion, since it's my firm belief it will reduce player retention. Player retention should be the main focus, since that's what will make or break this game as I see it considering it's a niche game.
  • Create New...