Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

The most beautiful Naval game that will die like POTBS did...hear me out


Recommended Posts

I fondly remember when POTBS came out with its sailing adventure and crafting , giving players a chance to build, own and destroy sailing ships on a gorgeous canvas of pixel water. I remember the enthusiasm of all the players, how fat the servers were and how big the port battles in POTBS were. Months went by... more battles, more ports turn different colors changing hands for those European kings. AFter a year then two years suddenly the servers were merged, players leaving in droves, devs scramble with pvp changes that just drove more players away until all that was left were the dreamers of what the game could have been. Still all they could do was serve their European kings.

 

In 2003 a revolutionary space game hit the market called EVE Online, i remember it fondly and still play it today. A new book was published that highlighted the wars between player made empires in EVE online, it is an amazing look at the player made empires and wars that go on and on even today and why so many people still play EVE Online over 13 years later. Obviously there is more to EVE than just player owned systems but it is one of its core successes.

 

So why does a game like EVE thrives and POTBS dies?

 

Imagine if the developers of EVE Online created their space world where four AI nations owned all of the star systems. players had to join one of those nations and all players could do is go back and forth fighting battles that did nothing more than create pvp battles but no lasting player made history....you are always just a pawn for the AI nations. I can promise you EVE Online would be long gone in the history books of video games.

 

Naval action is an amazing game, it is so much more than POTBS and naval action has soooo much potential. The devs seem very good too because they listen to the players and genuinely want to create a game players will love and stick with.

 

I am sad to say that in my honest opinion, no matter how much the devs try...they will ultimately fail and like POTBS , naval action will die in just a few years, reduced to one server with a couple dozen die hard fans, who still fight for those European kings.

 

I write this because i want to see naval action become the game it can be. I want to encourage the Devs to please consider taking the majority of ports on the map away from the European nations and make them neutral and for players to fight over, let the players create their own empires and fight over them in true iron men, wooden ship fashion. where players create their own story and nation and have their own kings.

 

sure the european nations would remain but with maybe five ports each located near each other and those can serve as newer player or casual player ports for those who want to serve European kings.

 

If you plan to merge pvp2 to pvp1 because the population is low, how about trying something different instead. take pvp2 and make it your test bunny for my idea, i will bet money the server where players create their own nations will grow over time and the server forced to serve european kings will slowly... sink.

 

Just my 2 gold worth, see you at sea mates

Edited by Rebel Witch
  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I fondly remember when POTBS came out with its sailing adventure and crafting , giving players a chance to build, own and destroy sailing ships on a gorgeous canvas of pixel water. I remember the enth

what you actually mean is for Naval action to become the game YOU want it to be...i don't want to play eve with sailing ships.

It's also silly to ignore the history of online gaming. Carve your own path but pay attention that you aren't following an existing path that we already know went off a cliff.

What a long post.

 

TL:DR
Make this Age of Sail EVE with corps instead of nations.

 

How about no. You can already have that to some extend, btw. Just hold ports really far from home

Pick France, and try to hold Louisiana.

Or pick Spain, and try to maintain Caracas.

Britain? They start with two ports in the lower Antilles.

 

I'm sure no "scrubs" will get in your way, which is the real motivation between segregating nations into corps, even if you're smart enough not to write that down, so here, I did it for you.

Edited by Quineloe
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that if the game begins to die, however that might be determined, that a new class of port could be introduced at that time?

If that could conceivably happen, it would save the OP some concern today.

Postponing such a change might also allow the devs to react to some entirely different and unforseen phenomenon... just in case its a false conclusion that this one thing different between Eve and POTBS was the only determining factor. The assertion that the analogy holds for NA is un-discussed in the original post, btw.

Edited by ObiQuiet
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the initial hostile responses were at all warranted. It was a suggestion and opinion and there was a serious points made and ideas that were worthy of discussion.

The eye point made was how to keep the longevity of this game. The Eve model was obviously successful.

NA potentially does not have that scope because of where it is set in a very finite space.

But the long game must be considered very very soon and how to keep people coming back year after year not just month after month.

We are already struggling with player numbers now.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rebel,

 

Here is an idea that warrants a more biased stance of the Caribbean ports, but where players are still in the lead with bringing change.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12535-town-morale-conquest-mechanic-suggestion/?p=236505

 

All games will die eventually and a game like EVE Online only still is there because of player investment. It is hard for humans to part with their acquired trinkets they fought hard for. Naval Action has not a very sturdy investment curve, nor has it so many trinkets to be collected yet; and if it wasn't for the limited available labourhours they might as well be handing out SOL's for breakfast. A goldpiece is worth nothing due to limited goldsinks in the game and -faucets give too much.

 

However, work in progress and whatever the future brings with further balancing and new features. I am having a great time with this game sofar.

Edited by Lytse Pier
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the initial hostile responses were at all warranted. It was a suggestion and opinion and there was a serious points made and ideas that were worthy of discussion.

The eye point made was how to keep the longevity of this game. The Eve model was obviously successful.

NA potentially does not have that scope because of where it is set in a very finite space.

But the long game must be considered very very soon and how to keep people coming back year after year not just month after month.

We are already struggling with player numbers now.

I have no issue with the OP making suggestions...i do get a little pi**ed off with the "drama" attached to those suggestion...i.e. "if you don't do this to the game devs the game is going to die!"

Its totally unnesscary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a long post.

 

TL:DR

Make this Age of Sail EVE with corps instead of nations.

 

How about no. You can already have that to some extend, btw. Just hold ports really far from home

Pick France, and try to hold Louisiana.

Or pick Spain, and try to maintain Caracas.

Britain? They start with two ports in the lower Antilles.

 

I'm sure no "scrubs" will get in your way, which is the real motivation between segregating nations into corps, even if you're smart enough not to write that down, so here, I did it for you.

hhhhmm, The game is already like this with the amount of rogue clans we have doing what the want and ignoring the decisions of clan councils.

 

The devs need to decide which  game they want - the EVE with wooden ships (which I think will be fine) with clans/corps whatever or game with nations (which I will be ok too) where captains of the nation can hunt rogue clans like pirates for not following king/republic orders.

 

Currently we have neither of these or we pretend to have both. And this is the aspect of game that frustrates me a lot. I can't feel like a naval officer when everybody in nation is free to do what they want and fight who they want without any control - it's more or else EVE style (but without all the perks of reputations). On the other hand you can't do completely what you want (unless you go easy mode and turn pirate), cause stupid system not allows you to fight with rogue clans sailing under your nation flag.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness gracious me! The OP has stated that Naval Action is doomed to fail! How about we do our job as testers to provide constructive feedback and actually wait for the game to come out of... ALPHA(!!!) before we claim that the end of the world is nigh?!

More seriously though, if we do our jobs and the devs continue their hard work I see no reason why this exceptional game can't have a good, successful future in it's own right (ie not trying to compare it to other, very different games).

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The end of the world is nigh, repent you sinners before it is to late... oh wait a minute, game has not beeen released as a finished product yet. Amazing how many people seem to predict death and destruction before the life has even started. A lot of folk buy EA games to try then come back at full release, all this game is dying crap is just that crap.

Game will live or die on what it is at release, not at a partly finished product with a lot of plans and changes ahead, stop with all this doom and gloom for gods sake, enjoy the game, if you don't then leave it try again later, and if you still don't like it then hey you bought the wrong game, go try something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst this is just one persons opinion and I'd argue there were more factors to eves success and potbs fails, it still raises good points.

Player controlled history is also important to me, as whilst nations should be the foundation of the conquest mechanics, guilds should be significantly more important than they are at present.

Port battles should still be significantly rarer than they are and for a guild to own a port should be an achievement in itself. The issue with that though is there are too many ports in relation to players. Meaning servers need a much larger capacity. But there is no point upgrading servers with only 2000 players, so we need more players, which will come at release.

Long story short, this is alpha, it's not perfect we need to wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're early in a very ambitious and tasteful undertaking. Those of us who already love it will spend tons in a "pay to decorate" cash shop. Devs don't need a wake up call or warning.

OP's comparison is worth thinking about. Maybe not as a comparison. Potbs doesn't sound as serious at NA. But will they go highly structured and technical like a massively micromanaged game of total war napoleon islands map? Or player driven insanity that people tell stories of and has to hire an economist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think nation/corporation difference has as massive part in the matter as the OP thinks but it would be nice and healthy for the game to make the borders between nations a little less absolute and to add some more concrete rivalry inside the nations. Letters of Marque could make the players of different nations a bit more fluid. Maybe clans could have some exclusive options (taxation, usage limitations etc) available in ports that it has taken and invested in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, this game has great potential and the developers do a good job. The only problem there might be with the times is that the mentality of much of today come in this game players rot like other one was. In almost twenty years of gaming experience of all kinds, my opinion is forged and I fear that unfortunately it did not improve. If mentalities do not change (excessive optimization, bug farms, cheats, and all at once etc. ..) all the games that come out will have hardly of very long life span. That remains my humble opinion. Sincerely JG

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually quite like this idea - however also love what we have currently. Back in early development there was much discussion around choosing between the real world map (which we have currently) or an entirely new one to explore and discover, and if I remember correctly it was a fairly even split back then.

Another (additional) server with no nations (maybe just clans?) and a brand new map that gives players the option to truly forge their own way in a new world could bring something refreshing and new to the game.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to make a server that has:

 

* Player-created nations.

Any player can found a nation.

If you have no ports you can pick up your flag from any Free Port to attack a regular port.

Once you have a port, you can only pick up flags from your ports (like now).

* TOTALLY DIFFERENT MAP

Not the Caribbean, which frankly kinda sucks as a balanced, fun map.

Not symmetrical but more like a giant archipelago.

Lots of island chains and island clumps. Some large scattered islands.

 

I say "a separate server" but I bet most people would end up playing there.

 

I do agree that this whole Caribbean war of fixed NPC teams has a lot of flaws. Maybe we can fix it. Certainly I think we can do better than POTBS -- the PvP setup is already way better than POTBS ever was -- but some thought should be put into alternatives.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the topic merits discussion. This far, Naval Action and POTBS have mirrored each other in both game play challenges as well as population declines. It seems accelerated with NA.

I'm not saying that an EVE-esqse format is warranted, but thinking outside the box is.

I think NA hit gold with the arena based combat personally.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

EVE is alive because we players make it alive. Players run the economy, the politics, etc with little injerence from the devs. Very few things are forbidden and are EULA breaching. Here people would freak out like crazy if they knew about scams and spying etc. They want a sandbox but they don't know what a sandbox entails. If you see their tears for losing ships with durability in a game with instanced combat, it would be deadly hilarious to read their tears if what they lost had something to be compared in terms of regular currency. I am baffled at the risk aversion here, where you print top tier ships. Imagine if they had to get the ISK for a titan, train the character for a couple of years (like i did for example) and then convince them to use them in a battle with huge chances of losing. Go to EVE forums and tell them about adding "durability" and wait for the shitstorm you get.

I purchased this game when i saw it was an open world with a sandbox and suddenly i wanted it because metagaming and politics is very fun, and the game is pretty cool and fun to play. But then I see more and more how people builds fences around the sandbox, tells you how to play, what you can do and what you can't, etc.

People will always ragequit for whatever reason. Last patch for example, it is simply amazing the amount of tears for making the IA a bit more challenging instead of the same dumb grind for hours straight. They have been annoying the devs until they nerfed the ganking to the ground, etc.

They will never stop until they get their safe heaven theme park, yet they want to play in a PVP server.

All games die at some point, why people treat Eve like the immortal holy grail of gaming is beyond me. One day too it shall fall.

If you think that 12 years online in only one server and making the biggest battles of the history of gaming among many other things is not something to compare with, well, then i guess we can play pandas and elves.

Edited by Migui
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to chill, Naval Action is still in testing. Early access, I don't get it. Theirs still a lot of work that needs to be done, of course people aren't going to want to help test, report and deal with bugs. They are waiting for full release because they don't want to test it, they can't be botherd.

 

And please, stop comparing Naval Action to PotBs and EVE. It's getting old.

Edited by Acadian44
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the constant comparison to EVE online and POTBS is very unfair for a game that's trying its hardest to carve its own footprint in the industry.

 

It's also silly to ignore the history of online gaming. Carve your own path but pay attention that you aren't following an existing path that we already know went off a cliff.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to make a server that has:

 

* Player-created nations.

Any player can found a nation.

If you have no ports you can pick up your flag from any Free Port to attack a regular port.

Once you have a port, you can only pick up flags from your ports (like now).

* TOTALLY DIFFERENT MAP

Not the Caribbean, which frankly kinda sucks as a balanced, fun map.

Not symmetrical but more like a giant archipelago.

Lots of island chains and island clumps. Some large scattered islands.

 

I say "a separate server" but I bet most people would end up playing there.

 

I do agree that this whole Caribbean war of fixed NPC teams has a lot of flaws. Maybe we can fix it. Certainly I think we can do better than POTBS -- the PvP setup is already way better than POTBS ever was -- but some thought should be put into alternatives.

 

 

I haven't been here nearly long enough to know what the plurality or majority of the community think (likely very few at all have a good idea of this!), but it would entirely depend upon how important historicality is to the population.

 

Are there large swathes of folks that are, more or less, tied to this game because of a deep love of their nation's role in the age of sail? Maybe I'm not explaining this properly. I'm in the U.S., but it seems like there are a significant population of European players that attach themselves firmly to their IRL home nation. That's fine, and honestly, I've always enjoyed when clans/groups seem to break down by nationality in the previous large-scale multiplayer games I've participated in, for some reason.

 

What I'm trying to ask, I reckon, is this: whaddya think the percentage of people playing this game primarily for the historical value; almost as a pseudo-RP thing?

 

Oh, and tell Digglez that Sandy said hi. 

 

And that cRPG has finally crashed with no survivors due to massive drama-bans :^)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...