What is this games intent?

[Lord Heyford]

On 11/22/2016 at 7:25 AM, admin said:

. We definitely probably should have stopped earlier and focus on polish instead of adding new things. Adding new things broke the soup.

You know, this is probably the first time I've seen you admit that there is a problem and that YOU (the Devs) broke it.

[Lord Heyford]

So, if it's broke, as you admit, why not reset the code back to August and then set a new course of polish. The current state shouldn't be polished. The saying goes, you can't polish a turd.

[Balsafer]

I honestly think the devs should of stuck to there own vision mostly and take ideas from players that fit there vision, like all said cant make everyone happy not to mention I personally rather have this game lean more to simulation. We currently have to many magic things in the game which i thought the devs and most wanted to avoid.

[Blackjack Morgan]

In my opinion things got off path in large part shortly after Early Access. Prior to that you had a relatively small population of testers that were very passionate about the development of the game and more open to constructive debate and discussion....all toward the overall objective of making NA as great of a game as possible. Then EA happened and with it came a large influx of new players. Not that it wasn't in need of numbers for further testing but the downside brought about some rather large chaos in the development.

Things that had been tested, debated and finally refined by a small group of hardcore testers over many many months were now being tossed aside. Newer players, through no fault of their own really, didn't understand much of the reasoning behind why certain mechanics were the way they were. They clamored for changes even while many older testers tried to explain that what they asked for had been tested already and proved to be flawed. Unfortunately, I think on many things the devs listened too much to what was asked for. Things that had been advanced and worked out were now replaced by systems that had already proven to be problematic.

It is quite often why I feel like for every step forward NA has taken it takes two steps back. The original vision of having a combat system that leaned toward realism but would always side with "fun" and encouraging pvp have been lost site of. The game, in my opinion, is currently struggling because they have lost site of what it was meant to be. A game that leaned toward realism but encouraged pvp without massive time sinks and chores that need to be done in order to even pvp effectively in the first place.

The devs have not been without fault either. I think even through their own admission they sometimes strive to refine combat too much without realizing that doing so is coming at the expense of further overall game advancement. Every time you tinker with mods, trims, crafting, penetration values, sailing mechanics....you end up delaying further progression by months as it takes time to test and work all these things out. Which is somewhat where we are now. PvE players are not that happy as their really isn't any new material for them....PvP players are not happy as it has become much harder to even get fights....crafters are not happy because they never seem to be happy for one reason or the other....in short by trying to make it appeal to all these different groups it has ended up appealing to none.

Crafters at the end of the day need pvp'ers to be losing ships at a high enough rate to make a demand for their product. PvP'ers need to be able to have a game that allows for frequent and quality matches. PvE'ers need to have some interesting content that keeps them entertained. I don't feel like any of these groups are satisfied with they way things are currently.....unfortunately, instead of working toward refining these things we are still debating ROE and crew damage losses....things that really were worked out ages ago to one degree or another.

At this stage I'd scrap the last patch altogether to be honest. Go back to where we were at and start making changes to the port battle system, alliances, and figuring out ways that actually help encourage pvp. If you want to make an in depth crafting and econ system then have it tied to port defenses and SOL's....these things are closer to national war efforts anyways. Let 4th rates and below be the easily crafted and customized ships that are used in ow pvp and leave the big boys for things like coordinated offensives are defenses by nationals. Figure out a unique game style for pirates instead of just leaving them as a half assed nation that nobody is happy with. You had a combat and sailing mechanic that was pretty damn good before this patch....should have left it alone and worked toward these other things than what you did.

NA is still a great sailing game. However, you need to stop messing with the combat and sailing mechanics so much and focus on further game development. This last patch has resulted in carronades being completely nerfed, regional trim bonuses that are borderline absurd, a crew damage mechanic that might be more realistic but completely out of line with historical sailing dynamics (turning and speed), fine woods that require too much focus on gathering rather than actually time spent fighting, alliances where literally half of the nations are all buddies and can't fight, islands ringed in forts and towers discouraging pvp, an ROE circle that spans hundreds of miles and pulls everything into battle, ai fleets which had been tested and mostly despised once again brought back, regional trim bonuses that were supposed to help congregate players to hot zones but rather have spewed a small player base over an entire massive map instead....I could go on but I think I made my point.     

Edited November 27, 2016 by Blackjack Morgan

[Kaos]

57 minutes ago, Blackjack Morgan said:

NA is still a great sailing game. However, you need to stop fucking with the combat and sailing mechanics so much and focus on further game development.

I believe combat was and still is the core element of this game and the only one that actually works, the rest of the game built around it is just a fluff and ideas mainly from open development that (sorry to shatter dreams and illusions) will never get finished or polished since they simply lack the manpower to do so but you cannot say that they didn't listen to the players. The state of the game right now is a beautiful example of open development with all it's flaws though I believe the intent was good and optimistic, the result is that they will probably never make anything open development again.

gg no re
 

[Cmdr RideZ]

Yes, the current version is worst than the one before.  The worst version that I have been playing so far to be honest.  But not sure if with some small changes they actually could get some sense back in this.  But indeed, they failed in combat, conquest, trading and crafting.  It was somehow a perfect fail, so something perfect at least.

Maybe they should not do big patches anymore.  Instead just do small modifications and update frequently.  Like this last patch, if they had done that, we could have told them directly this was bad and this was good.  Now in the last patch everything was a fail.  Then make good patch notes, so that people know what was changed with purpose and what was not, etc.  This hiding stuff from testers is simply stupid.

At least increase the tempo that the things could get fixed and tested step by step and fast.  Now we could be waiting for another fail patch here.

But as we can see with the rake damage.  There are even people who honestly believe that it is at the sweet spot right now.  So not sure if devs should listen the community at all anymore.  But if this retarded rake damage model is designed by you devs, then for F sake stop this kind of madness already.

[Marques]

It seems to me...

WHAT MAKES GAMES SUCCESSFUL? FACTORS THAT GUARANTEE THE SUCCESS OF NAVAL ACTION GAME.
1. Surprise! Constantly keep the player trapped in the game. Create a story that advances in time, and if does not have, copy the history itself, events and battles and reproduce. Do you have this in Naval Action?...
2. I will do it before you. Competition Human by nature, especially the player, likes to stand out, always be at the top of the podium (but watch the competitions of the Olympic Games), so games can take a lot of this by focusing on the game at levels that Allow us to overcome ourselves, or the friends your clan we have.
Do you have this in Naval Action?...

3. Each story is unique. Those games that allow multiple combinations of the game and that challenge the player to make decisions or define what course the game will have, as it progresses in it, are those that in trend make a relative difference. Example of them we have games like Resident Evil did anyone find Nemesis? Another example of games are those where you have to create your own civilizations or build your own world, develop farms or mines. The combinations are hundreds. You must define a plot, choose an avatar and create a game profile.
Do you have this in Naval Action?...
Even though we just talked about how great gameplay trumps a great story, it's important to point out that the story still plays a key role in a game's success. A great story to keep the player immersed in the world (Historical) you've created. They should feel attached to the characters and want to continue playing to see how the story unfolds.

Story, history, and gameplay are 3 vital for having a great game like Naval Action. While game playable is important and in many cases can drive a game without much of a story, it does not always save a game. This is true if the game is a single player-only experience like the Batman Arkham series. For games like that, the story is more important than games that have multiple types of gameplay, like multiplayer. For Naval Action Story and History should be joined.
Do you have this in Naval Action?...
And finally...
4. Great Art Style
Graphics are extremely important for any video game; it’s what the player sees. Everything from the environments, the characters and even the lighting all play a role in the look and feel of the game. As hardware advances so do the graphics being presented to the player and more and more games are gravitating toward a hyper-realistic experience to help immerse the player. Naval action has a very good ships, and some good effects, but lacking animations, crews, characters, boardings and many more things.
Do you have this in Naval Action?...

Conclusion.
 Game playability, story, and history, are 3 of the most important aspects of a successful game like NA; once you have the story established it can help you create an art style that will fit the world. Lot of work remain for Naval Action Devs. Please do it...
I Like currently and the future of this game, Thanks anyway.!!!

Edited November 26, 2016 by Marques

[Slamz]

Pretty curious which are supposed to be the flaws which are supposed to be the improvements.

Flaw: "Fine wood". As admin has noted, the way it's implemented just results in a market glut on regular wood. Actually if you want to produce gray ships, you could probably put out buy orders for regular wood @2 each and fill up in no time because people are dumping so much that the NPCs are only paying 1 now at the wood production ports. I'm not opposed to trying to make gold ships be "rares" but this implementation makes me frown.

Improvement: [assuming it's still happening] eliminating green/blue/purple. Eliminating randomness from ship construction. It was always stupid to have to build and scrap and build and scrap just because you needed a particular build type. And MAYBE the 5 levels of ships could work but with the cost difference between them being relatively slight there's never been a reason to build a blue ship. You go gray or you wait and go gold.

Flaw: Regional bonuses. Actually I can see some sense to it but I'm not sure it's worth it. It adds a lot of damn overhead to ship construction.

Improvement: continued work on port flip mechanics. I don't know if the current method is perfect but anything beats the old method, which the players mostly manipulated in ways that let them avoid PvP. It was all about quick flag runs, distractions and blockades (with "blockades" mainly being hit-and-run to delay entry, or ganks). I at least feel the current method is headed in the right direction, making port flips more of a long process with chances to fight over it.

Flaw: Crew. I dunno. I do like the concept that we want captains to not simply suicide their ships. We want them to feel a little something when they lose 1000 crew, which in the old system, they didn't. But then you just cook up some medkits to replace them so it's all about getting fish and salt? I'm just not sure that "crew" was the right way to make ship loss painful. That seems like it should be handled through the ship crafting process and this is just a bizarre tack-on to that.

Improvement: Clearer rules about who can join fights. It was always broken when we let people hide in ports and hide in fights and then jump out and join battles. I know people bitch about the new rules but the old ways were worse.

Improvement: Redistribution of resources. I'm sure people bitch about this too but the old way made it possible to build ships with very little traffic movement. I do like that the new distribution of resources seems to result in more cargo movement, which is important to make the game feel alive. If people have no reason to ship things then we lose an important facet of the game.

Improvement: Making it easier to see where goods may be at, via the in-game map. If anything, this should be further improved. I see no reason to obfuscate where resources can be obtained. We'd make "trader" a much more viable profession if we actually let people know where to go.

 

Overall I see more good than bad in the changes of the last year.

Oh, but:

Flaw: Adding canned missions. This is a mistake. That is an endless road to start down and it is the opposite of an "open world sandbox game". I think these missions are a case of listening to the wrong voices, taking the game in a direction opposite of where it had been going.