Game is bleeding players

[Mrdoomed]

Hundreds of thousands, I'm hoping you are referring to games in general and not this one lol.

What really kills games is the wannabe hard core guys who make stupid demands, and when they get what they leave because they can't hack it. The game dies due to being unplayable to the majority of people.

I said hundreds or a thousand. Meaning ten one hundreds.

[Justme]

I said hundreds or a thousand. Meaning ten one hundreds.

Stupid small cellphone screen lol.

[Mrdoomed]

Stupid small cellphone screen lol.

Ha ha i hear ya. I can only read the forums on my phone while im waiting to get my truck loaded so my phone auto corrects me to death and i always hit the wrong keys and come up with odd words.

[Aetrion]

Again, the fact that most of the people who are currently playing this game enjoy the one thing it does doesn't prove anything other than that everyone who doesn't like that thing isn't playing the game. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Aetrion

[Mrdoomed]

Again, the fact that most of the people who are currently playing this game enjoy the one thing it does doesn't prove anything other than that everyone who doesn't like that thing isn't playing the game.

Again a broken record saying the same thing endlessly about trying to make the devs rewrite the entire game to please him.

Again refuses to listen to anyone telling him how to possibly enjoy the game.

Is there a way to block your post so i stop getting the alert that a new post is added? I cant deal with the echo but want to try and help make things better for the game amd people who acually play it.

[Aetrion]

Nobody is asking for the devs to "rewrite the whole game", just to consider going forward in a direction that keeps the essential thematic aspects of the game free from all the clanwar stuff that most people don't have the time or inclination to deal with and instead have some other goals for people to go after.

 

You can't expect people to simply change what they enjoy until the game suits them. With that logic I might as well say you should just play bejeweled all day and change your tastes till you like it. 

 

Why are you so angry at people who just want the game to accommodate multiple different styles of play? It seems utterly irrational. Nobody is trying to take anything away from what you enjoy, they merely want the devs to also add some of what they enjoy.

[Slamz]

The problem with this approach, or rather the point, is that as a game everyone is or would be able to save up enough currency to bypass the steps along the way.

 

Yeah, the real question is "what value do these steps have".

 

In an MMORPG, every step (level) is an important and unique segment of hand-crafted content. This level 20-24 dungeon is only good for levels 20-24. It was hand-made and custom fit for those levels. The NPCs, the bosses, the loot, all meant for that level range and if you skip it, you will never get to experience a bit of content that the developers probably spent 100 man-hours creating.

 

Some MMORPGs let you create a new character straight to "level 80" or whatnot, meaning you have skipped loads of unique content that was only valid for levels 1-79. (Whether that content was fun is debatable, but there was a lot of custom content.)

 

 

It makes a whole lot less sense in this game. Rank 3 is not some carefully crafted section of the game that you will never get to see if you skip it. At best, it might be argued that there's a sort of learning curve we want to force new players through but there's really no reason to make someone spend 100 hours of gameplay before they can sail a frigate. Brig and sloop level gameplay is not nearly interesting enough to force people to sit in there for so long.

 

Levels in this game serve little, if any, purpose.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Slamz

[KrakkenSmacken]

Yeah, the real question is "what value do these steps have".

 

In an MMORPG, every step (level) is an important and unique segment of hand-crafted content. This level 20-24 dungeon is only good for levels 20-24. It was hand-made and custom fit for those levels. The NPCs, the bosses, the loot, all meant for that level range and if you skip it, you will never get to experience a bit of content that the developers probably spent 100 man-hours creating.

 

Some MMORPGs let you create a new character straight to "level 80" or whatnot, meaning you have skipped loads of unique content that was only valid for levels 1-79. (Whether that content was fun is debatable, but there was a lot of custom content.)

 

 

It makes a whole lot less sense in this game. Rank 3 is not some carefully crafted section of the game that you will never get to see if you skip it. At best, it might be argued that there's a sort of learning curve we want to force new players through but there's really no reason to make someone spend 100 hours of gameplay before they can sail a frigate. Brig and sloop level gameplay is not nearly interesting enough to force people to sit in there for so long.

 

Levels if this game serve little, if any, purpose.

 

The ships ARE the content of which you speak. That is where the developers have poured hours and hours of labor.  The game play variance is not based on location, or abilities, or what have you, but on the behavior and handling of each ship.

 

The levels limit your progression so that you have to try the smaller ships before handling the larger one.  That it is demonstrated to some minor extent that you know how to handle a two mast ship before you try to handle a three.

 

So the answer to your question "what value do these level have", is they encourage a player to experience more and varied types of ships as they play through the game.

 

It could even be switched to a "licence" type model when there are more ships, so that using the same tree as crafting, at each point you decide what kind of ship you are spending your XP on.  After earning so much exp on the qualifier ship you get to pilot your target ship.

 

It could even be taken a step further so that after you get a new ship, you have to earn a set amount of XP before you gain mastery of it enough to train into the next one.

 

That they elected to let you try to captain any ship at any level, but if you do you have serious crew problems, is simply a reflection of this being a sand box and not a theme park type of MMO.

Edited March 17, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Enraged Ewok]

The ships ARE the content of which you speak. That is where the developers have poured hours and hours of labor.  The game play variance is not based on location, or abilities, or what have you, but on the behavior and handling of each ship.

 

The levels limit your progression so that you have to try the smaller ships before handling the larger one.  That it is demonstrated to some minor extent that you know how to handle a two mast ship before you try to handle a three.

 

So the answer to your question "what value do these level have", is they encourage a player to experience more and varied types of ships as they play through the game.

 

It could even be switched to a "licence" type model when there are more ships, so that using the same tree as crafting, at each point you decide what kind of ship you are spending your XP on.  After earning so much exp on the qualifier ship you get to pilot your target ship.

 

It could even be taken a step further so that after you get a new ship, you have to earn a set amount of XP before you gain mastery of it enough to train into the next one.

 

That they elected to let you try to captain any ship at any level, but if you do you have serious crew problems, is simply a reflection of this being a sand box and not a theme park type of MMO.

 

I would really prefer to avoid the XP tree type mechanic. I did it in World of Tanks, I did it in War Thunder, I did it in World of Warships. It sucked every time. I like how the game currently is where I can captain any ship I want (assuming I have the money or materials, and in some cases don't mind undercrewing somewhat) without having to research the ship before it, grind that ship to research the next one, and so on. I really don't want this to turn into a World of Sailing Ships game with an OW map.

[Aetrion]

It makes a whole lot less sense in this game. Rank 3 is not some carefully crafted section of the game that you will never get to see if you skip it. At best, it might be argued that there's a sort of learning curve we want to force new players through but there's really no reason to make someone spend 100 hours of gameplay before they can sail a frigate. Brig and sloop level gameplay is not nearly interesting enough to force people to sit in there for so long.

 

Levels if this game serve little, if any, purpose.

 

The current leveling system is flawed because it's conceptualized as a progression toward bigger ships, which the game then contradicts by slapping huge pricetags on big ships that make your progress meaningless unless you put in the hours to actually continuously afford those vessels.

 

The result is a game where the progression system is stalling out the people who want the strategic warfare and the strategic warfare is stalling out people who want the progression. That's exactly why we need a redesign of these ideas that let them make more sense for both kinds of player. 

 

To make leveling up motivating you need to actually get something for it. Something that's yours to keep. Simply being allowed to use bigger ships in a game that is choke full of systems that are meant to discourage using bigger ships just doesn't make for a positive experience in leveling up.

 

At the same time to keep the strategic warfare of the game motivating you need to give people the ability to meaningfully increase their capabilities by being successful in warfare, and to deny those capabilities to their opponents by defeating them.

 

Both of these ultimately require that there are ways in which you can increase your power that don't come down to just owning a bigger, better ship than the other guy.  The fact that right now the entire game is built around ship = power and ships are restricted in both ways just makes for a less than ideal experience for everyone. People who enjoy just plugging away to improve and customize and upgrade their ship can't get what they want, and people who enjoy looking at ships like buying units in an RTS also can't get what they want.

 

 

 

You basically have roleplaying game sensibilities and strategy game sensibilities rubbing against each other in a counterproductive way. They need a little more distance from each other, and that means the game can't try to force both of them into one single object that determines 100% of your capabilities.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Aetrion

[Enraged Ewok]

The current leveling system is flawed because it's conceptualized as a progression toward bigger ships, which the game then contradicts by slapping huge pricetags on big ships that make your progress meaningless unless you put in the hours to actually continuously afford those vessels.

 

I don't think you are playing the same game as the rest of us. With the most recent patches, gold is a nonissue. It's at the point where I, at Captain rank (350 crew), have no trouble affording 600k gold conquest flags out of my own pocket. I can easily afford to buy several of the exceptional Frigates/Belle Poules/Surprises, what have you that pop up in Tumbado for sail. Any issue with gold income is only an issue at the first couple levels, and even then the basic cutter is good enough to fight on even footing with Pickles and Privateers. By the time you have the crew to command a Brig, you will have the gold to afford one.

[Aetrion]

So that's somehow not an argument in favor of having a bit more nuance in the game? I personally find it a total joke that people can just fart conquest flags at each other all day long and to some people ships are basically meaningless. I'd like to see systems where attacking a port is a much bigger deal that has a lot more collaborative lead-up.

 

I think it also depends heavily on how you go about earning money.

[Slamz]

The ships ARE the content of which you speak. That is where the developers have poured hours and hours of labor.  The game play variance is not based on location, or abilities, or what have you, but on the behavior and handling of each ship.

 

The levels limit your progression so that you have to try the smaller ships before handling the larger one

 

Ehhhh, I dunno.

 

In an MMORPG, I make a new rank, get some new spells and 15 minutes later I have a pretty good grasp of them. I don't need to be forced to spend 5 hours using those spells before I am allowed to get the next set. The real reason I'm supposed to spend 5 hours at that level range is because I have to solve the mystery of the missing jewel and help Dugthop the Barbarian find his lost mother -- it's not 5 hours of "try this new fireball out", it's 5 hours of "play this custom roleplaying game quest and dungeon content".

 

Naval Action lacks that. We have the levels and the grind but not the roleplaying quest or dungeon content. We seem to have taken an RPG idea and missed the whole point of why it exists.

 

Seems to me we need to decide if we want to make hundreds of hours of hand-crafted PvE quest content to justify the leveling, or if we want to dump this leveling system.

 

 

I can maybe accept that Naval Action needs levels for "tutorial" purposes, but only to the extent of like 4 quality battles per ship. That's plenty to "try" it and learn it. More than that is just a forced grinding through bland AI bots before they can become relevant in RvR.

 

To make leveling up motivating you need to actually get something for it. Something that's yours to keep. Simply being allowed to use bigger ships in a game that is choke full of systems that are meant to discourage using bigger ships just doesn't make for a positive experience in leveling up.

 

I dunno, that part is rather traditional, isn't it? Your level 80 MMORPG character probably has nothing left at all from his level 60 days. Every skill he learned has been replaced and all his armor and gear is replaced and he never goes to those dungeons anymore. He didn't really keep anything at all (he has probably done at least 1 total respec, too).

 

Naval Action has to decide what it wants to be: an RPG type game that pushes you through content (each new bit totally replacing the previous), or a wargame that basically grants you access to everything straight away and lets the strategy of the situation dictate what you want to use.

 

 

Incidentally, my guild did some commerce raiding recently. We used privateers, pickles and cutters. We sacked a lot of British trade ships who were a little too relaxed for their own good. Later they came out to kill us with 3rd rates and Trincomalees which, of course, were absolutely useless -- they had no chance of catching us.

 

So there is SOME diversity in ships, at least in open sea warfare (especially commerce raiding) but I agree that port battles lack diversity and if all you cared about was those, there is no reason to sail anything except a top tier ship, which the current leveling system is a barrier to.

[KrakkenSmacken]

Ehhhh, I dunno.

 

In an MMORPG, I make a new rank, get some new spells and 15 minutes later I have a pretty good grasp of them. I don't need to be forced to spend 5 hours using those spells before I am allowed to get the next set. The real reason I'm supposed to spend 5 hours at that level range is because I have to solve the mystery of the missing jewel and help Dugthop the Barbarian find his lost mother -- it's not 5 hours of "try this new fireball out", it's 5 hours of "play this custom roleplaying game quest and dungeon content".

 

Naval Action lacks that. We have the levels and the grind but not the roleplaying quest or dungeon content. We seem to have taken an RPG idea and missed the whole point of why it exists.

 

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you.

 

I just think that given where the massive level of detail has been put into this game, as demonstrated in the historical documents referenced and other details, that is the content the developers want us to stop and smell the roses for and not just play 5 quick hours of and move on.  I suspect they want us to as you put it "try this new fireball out" because that new fireball is the point of the whole game.

 

That or they just need to add all the scaffolding around the building they are building.  It seem from the E-Conn comments like "we may not even have trading in the final game", there is quite a bit of throwing at the wall to see what sticks.

 

The core of what they want is ships, I think the rest is up for grabs, so it's not surprising that those parts are underdeveloped.

[surfimp]

So there is SOME diversity in ships, at least in open sea warfare (especially commerce raiding) but I agree that port battles lack diversity and if all you cared about was those, there is no reason to sail anything except a top tier ship, which the current leveling system is a barrier to.

 

I believe that creating meaningful things to do - besides grinding Admiralty missions - with 7th rate ships will help this game's success.

 

Commerce raiding would be a good fit for that.

 

However, the current combination of the teleport and reinforcement mechanics means it can be hard to do that in a PVP sense, and because of the way NPC trade ships and port resources automatically respawn, there's no RvR impact from PVE grinding.

 

Which has resulted in the current Port Battle meta, in which he who has the most big ships wins, leading to all the negative feelings people are expressing around grinding.

 

So, at the end, I think getting the economy right will be tremendously important to this game. If it's done well, it will lead to a lot more "action" for all ranks of captain and classes of ships. I'm hoping we're on our way.

[Aetrion]

Naval Action has to decide what it wants to be: an RPG type game that pushes you through content (each new bit totally replacing the previous), or a wargame that basically grants you access to everything straight away and lets the strategy of the situation dictate what you want to use.

 

So there is SOME diversity in ships, at least in open sea warfare (especially commerce raiding) but I agree that port battles lack diversity and if all you cared about was those, there is no reason to sail anything except a top tier ship, which the current leveling system is a barrier to.

 

I think there is room for the game to be a bit of both. An RPG doesn't have to be a strict progression from one thing to the next most powerful thing, in fact a lot of games are gravitating away from that again just because of how much it taints the genre. Instead a lot of new games are trying to go more into what is called horizontal progression, meaning instead of getting more powerful you gain versatility or deep specialization. I think that goes together well with wanting to build a system where there is no such thing as a "top tier ship" that is simply better than the competition.

 

I'm going to bring up Black Desert again, because that game does IMO an incredible job at having that global tactical endgame for guilds in combination with a crafting and trading system that runs through the acquisition of real estate and hiring of workers, making moving of goods into a major activity, and all that while also being an open world action RPG with full PvP that you can casually enjoy because big risks only kick in when you're stepping up to conquer a kingdom or some big reward activity like that, not if you just want to fight people for fun. That game just has a lot of great ideas on how to run an open world game in a way that is both extremely deep and accessible. 

 

This game could really benefit from similar systems. The one major thing this game needs to solve beyond that is figuring out how to make the various ship types all be desirable to use somehow, rather than having them just be a progression from weakest to strongest. What if you picked a style of play between "Combat" "Survey" and "Commerce" and ended up captaining ships of the line, frigates or indiamen accordingly? Rather than building the game from the ground up around the idea that every ship is simply a collection of hitpoints and guns you go straight to "What is the ships actual mission?" and build gameplay around that. The game doesn't have to disallow combat between those different types of ships, but it can simply separate their purpose and lines of advancement in terms of what the admiralty actually gives you gold for doing with them and what type of XP you earn by running them.

 

It simply doesn't have to force someone who just wants to fight to grind to get the right sized ship for a battle, nor does it have to deny someone who wants to explore and patrol a meaningful path of advancement by just placing all the ships that do that mid-tier somewhere with no deeper advancement. The commerce side of things is entirely neglected by just having these weird trade versions of tiny ships that can carry enough materials to make entire ships of the line somehow, that needs to be expanded on anyways.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Aetrion

[LordSitruc]

Ok so I am a little late to the conversation but a lot of the problem seems to me to be lack of direction of the players not so much the devs.

 

I think what we might need is a artificial political structure between the nations set up by the devs, the political situation could even be the same on all servers.  I think this would give focus to both the PVPers and the PVEers. I think with a little bit of story telling and writing on the devs part could led players to become invested in the conflict.

 

If it would have some kind of war score as well that would be a bonus to push PVPers and PVEers to kill the opposing nations ships whether that be in pvp or pve.

 

I think this would also push more players into a concentrated area so people wouldn't be complaining about having to sail 6 hours and not finding anyone to fight because you can see where the border between your nations are on the map and that will be where most of the conflict is. Right now we have nations that have 6 different clans going 6 different directions against other nations that have clans going against other people so your not getting as much conflict as you would if all 6 of those clans were on the same border and the clans from the other nation were there going against them.

 

Thus providing focus a more centralized area for conflict and a safer environment from griefers as new players or people that really didn't want to get involved in the conflict, as they could move away from that border when the war started.

 

 

 

We are all but humble sailors, and I think that the powers that be (which in this time period are 1000s of miles away for most of the powers that are involved) should be telling us who were at war with and who we're not at war.

 

Clan vs Clan and Nation vs nation player run politics usually work out but realm vs realm player run politics I don't think will work out.

 

We can kinda see that already with the weirdness to pvp action, treaties being brokered then the next day a new clan comes into the area and breaks the treaty because they weren't a part of it, lack of personal investment into a war, Wars of annihilation that don't end until the other nation has been reduced to one port and 3/4 of the players of that nation quit.

 

These are just a few examples of what I feel would be fixed with a artificial RvR diplomatic structure. It wouldn't even have to be well written or even be a very good justifications, hell, if you told be those British punks insulted the queen's mother's dog, that would be enough a reason for me to go sink a few of them to show them what for.

[admin]

Many people say that grind is very bad in NA - but the only reason it is in game right now is to provide somewhat realistic experience of the Captain slowly going up the ranks. It took nelson 30 years to get to the highest rank and overwhelming number of community members have asked us to slow down progression before release (it was much faster in testing for testing purposes. Grind is easy to address - but it also means players will try the ships they and will move on. 

 

Moving on its great. 

We believe that in many games online goes down over time and it is fine. Its natural. Death is the best evolution mechanism (but of course its too early to talk about death in early access).

 

The amount of content in the world is only going to increase. We only want players to come back when they feel like it. We don't want to create artificial walls or chains that tie player to the game.

 

Not sure if it is appropriate but our thoughts on requiring players to stay in one game are summarized best in this somewhat inappropriate video

[Bert Beard]

That video was funny........and some good points admin.

[ulysse77]

 

Clan vs Clan and Nation vs nation player run politics usually work out but realm vs realm player run politics I don't think will work out.

 

 

You pretty summed up hy whole feeling on the situation.... Sometime too much freedom is a bad thing

Edited March 21, 2016 by ulysse77

[Aetrion]

Moving on its great. 

We believe that in many games online goes down over time and it is fine. Its natural. Death is the best evolution mechanism (but of course its too early to talk about death in early access).

 

The amount of content in the world is only going to increase. We only want players to come back when they feel like it. We don't want to create artificial walls or chains that tie player to the game.

 

I think what's better than moving on is coming back later. Of course every game has a limited lifespan, and trying to design it as though it will never end often means it misses out on being as good as it can be during it's life cycle. But a game doesn't have to occupy people's time for a solid block of time and then they quit forever either. It should be an inviting place to come back to visit, and embrace that people sometimes want to do other things and then come back later.

 

This is why I feel strongly about allowing more casual play. For a lot of people leaving and coming back to a game isn't something that happens over the course of years, but something that happens over the course of months or weeks. I find myself totally obsessed with a game one week, and playing another the next, and it may be a month before I come back to that game. There will never be an MMO that I won't ditch for 3 weeks when a new Elderscrolls comes out, so any MMO that can't handle me being gone that long is running the risk of not getting me back afterward for example.

 

That's why I have a problem with the game being so clan centric or based around constant upkeep, because that completely disrupts that way of playing. If you really need a clan to do anything worthwhile in the game you run into a situation where you can't just leave for a month and come back later. Same with losing progress in the form of ships. If you leave while you're on the bottom of the fun-curve you might not ever feel like coming back, which is why it's better to have systems where you naturally recover after some time.

 

 

Especially right now in early access there is nothing wrong with people popping in to check out how it progresses and then playing other stuff again. That should be expected during early access. People don't have to prove their devotion to the concept by spending all day in an unfinished game, it's perfectly reasonable to explore other games and let their experiences with other products flow into their feedback here. After all, it's better to learn from a man who has read a thousand books than from one who has read one book a thousand times.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Aetrion

[Hethwill]

A clan is not necessary. A big ship is not mandatory.

 

Any person that likes games tends to tilt between titles that fill specific interests, be it RPG, be it military history, or management simulation.

Many early backers been away for months and even a full year. After trials and seeing the combat was superbly achieved many gave it a rest and returned to a more populated and polished open world.

 

It will always happen.

[OTMatt]

post patch, lets see what happens...

Its dedicated to the economy, its not going do anything magical to the vast majority of the players.

Maybe it's a good thing though, summer is a good time to release new ships and gameplay content.

[victor]

Many people say that grind is very bad in NA - but the only reason it is in game right now is to provide somewhat realistic experience of the Captain slowly going up the ranks. It took nelson 30 years to get to the highest rank and overwhelming number of community members have asked us to slow down progression before release (it was much faster in testing for testing purposes. Grind is easy to address - but it also means players will try the ships they and will move on. 

 

Moving on its great. 

We believe that in many games online goes down over time and it is fine. Its natural. Death is the best evolution mechanism (but of course its too early to talk about death in early access).

 

The amount of content in the world is only going to increase. We only want players to come back when they feel like it. We don't want to create artificial walls or chains that tie player to the game.

 

Not sure if it is appropriate but our thoughts on requiring players to stay in one game are summarized best in this somewhat inappropriate video

 

 

Sorry but your view really amazes me (and also scares me a little bit): this kind of speech are normal (and expected) from a developer of a well established game that has already gained - let's say - at least a couple of years of success after the release and that has a solid playerbase that pays a recurrent fee. In this situation it is natural some players go forth and back for new patches and contents.

 

But ... we are still some 3000 testers in alpha phase and the "good idea" around which the game is build in my opinion SHALL take a more definite shape, or it will end in being only another good indie project that could have been a good game but remained only a good concept!

 

Don't get me wrong, but fact is that your idea of game is really good, so good that - perhaps - it deserves to be handled and developed with a lot more resources (both money and people). Keeping it so little as it was in the past could work on the short time, but on the long time it could be a double edged choice.

 

And - I repeat - I really like the concept of the game.

Edited March 21, 2016 by victor

[Eldberg]

Honestly, I think releasing on steam early access this early in the pipeline was a mistake.

There are some fundamental game mechanics that are heavily flawed and need completely re-working. My worry is that the developers are so emotionally attached and invested that they are making elemental mistakes that could otherwise be avoided with a little more care and overview. This is by no means bashing them for the work they have done so far, as the game IS beautiful, and it without a doubt has huge potential. This is their first MMO as I understand, so there is a HUGE learning curve. So far they have done an impressive job with such a small team, however with that said I can't help but feel that hard work is being done in the wrong places.

Releasing on SEA is meant to be an opportunity for developers to work a community up in to a frenzy about their game. With underwhelming user interface, lack of basic tutorials, and nations being decimated by flawed mechanics, players have been "jumping ship" faster than a rat. It was simply too early.

The daily unique player count has dropped drastically, more than enough to have all the players on a single server, instead of spread thin amongst several.

 

Edited March 21, 2016 by Stephen_Decatur