Bad reviewers on Steam with 1,000+ hours: You are an absolute disgrace

[Hethwill]

Let's stick with NA shall we ?

I am sure a lot of us have game libraries counting hundreds of games and surely large dozens of EA and we are not going to start discussing them, right ?

[Guest]

But but but...Squad ^^

[Hethwill]

Didn't get what you mean. What does anyone's bank account and hobbies is brought to the discussion ?

Maybe I should drop some hobbies and dedicate entirely to pc-gaming... hmmm...

[Hethwill]

I understand now. You means the self-entitlement some of the players give themselves seeking authority or importance over product design decisions while they aren't qualified for that i.e. not belonging to dev team, not a critic.

Well, that I can back up and stand behind.

[admin]

5 hours ago, sruPL said:

I waited 2 weeks for hotfix (promised by Devs) before putting negative review after patch. 

What hotfix we promised and have not delivered?
Also 2 weeks? You are too impatient for early access maybe, some people waited for 40 years to sail the Endymion replica. 

Blackwake is an instanced first person shooter. Those are fun for first 100-200 hours always (just like our seatrials). The real tests will come later. 

[FrostZone]

I guess this is one person's opinion.  Just because you have played 1000+ hours does not mean that everyone else isn't entitled to there's as well.  

 

[admin]

On 11/28/2016 at 4:37 AM, NorthernWolves said:

 

So you leave a bad review and keep playing to ensure that that problem continues? That is just about the dumbest goddamn thing I have ever heard of.

Naval Action now has a 'mixed' review status on Steam thanks to theses petulant temper tantrum throwing children. Hell, one of them was a single sentence 'review' about the 'server being down', a dozen others were about being 'ganked'. Fucking Christ man, grow up.
 

1000 hours is a lot

In World of Warcraft a player would pay game price + 150 dollars subscriptions if he played 3 hours per day for 333 days = 1000 hours. These subs allow to improve support and add new content. We only charge the game price - we always promised limited content and never promised that our game has 1000+ hours of quality gameplay. We have well enough for 40 dollars. Our game is in top 5 steam games based on average hours per player (99 hours).

Part 1. Early access contract.

We believed we had a contract with our early access players.

• We give players the chance to play the game earlier than usual, we listen to their proposals and implement a lot of them, Simple example - free town deliveries = was coded based on a player proposal. OW was a player proposal. We also agreed to not add micro transactions before release and to not charge subscription for an MMO during development. Long term players in other games usually pay for their mmos in form of subs or premium content or quality of life content.
• In turn. Players allow us to experiment and forgive early access content and mistakes.

This is how early access is supposed to work. Experimenting = doing good things and bad things to a game to test and stretch and find perfect features that might have been missed. First atomic bomb experiments were negative and if reviews were used to judge Einstein and manhattan project team the world would never see nuclear energy.

Part 2. Jaded players with lots of hours.

Some players don't like the experiments despite the fact that it was promised. Some players also expect something they hope to receive even though we were very careful with what we say and never promised anything beyond what is listed on our Steam green light page and steam store page.

For such players the game was awesome first 999 hours and then turns into an ugly monster on 1000th hour. They leave the warning to others denying them the first 100-200 hours of fun, knowing that first 100 hours are in fact very good because the game is new to those people. It could be boring after 1000th hours - but 99% of games are boring after 100. 

It is still the best multiplayer age of sail game out there. And we do have the best ship selection of all age of sail games ever done. Some of the rough things are experiments. We are a small developer and being small and commercially brutal we wont be hesitating cutting things if necessary. Including the whole open world. 

Part 3. Not all reviews are equal.

There are 3 groups of reviewers.

1. Group 1: People who are already happy with current game already got what they wanted and wont change the reviews whatever happens because ships, yards and age of sail
2. Group 2. Players who are unhappy with everything don't need anything new and just hate the game so they don't care and want the game to die.
3. Group 3. Players who are unhappy with something and change the early access reviews back and forth using them as warning or weapon, or some kind of messaging system

If you left a negative review because of things other than combat and ships and visuals, but still play or want to come back to something better later - we do suggest to change your view and return to judging the game once its ready and finalized. Remember that there are really no good multiplayer games about age of sail with proper ships, shooting and sailing.

If players who are unhappy about certain features (but not the age of sail game in general) will use reviews as weapon they will definitely never get the game they want. The reason is simple. Lower reviews = less sales = no funds to experiment or add new content. 

Part 4. Next steps

You have all probably witnessed that there is no new ship selection voting planned. We have ran several player selections before where players chose the ship we must make. Many awesome ships appeared in game because of such votes. Ingermanland, Santisima Trinidad, Ocean, Rattlesnake and several others. We cannot afford a new player ship selection voting because of mixed reviews. We are a MMO and have to pay for servers and support teams. We don't have microtransactions and subscriptions to pay for content thus such reviews from group 3 could create a vicious cycle. 

1. Group 3 players want more content and leave negative review
2. New players stop buying because of negative reviews
3. Developers stop developing because there is no other sub income or microtransactions income to support new content
4. Group 3 players leave even more negative reviews because development is even slower now
5. Only group 1 people are happy because they buy the game because of ships and combat and dont care about roe bugs, port battles problems and other things. 

Thus there are 2 options if nothing changes

1. focus only on group 1 and new players, cutting content that is inadequate and/or will take long time to cook
2. charge subscriptions and sell ships and quality of life for money allowing to add content despite low new players sales during development

Option 3 exists but group 3 should reconsider how they approach reviews and should try think if they want to give devs some room to experiment and time to add new content 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, admin said:

1000 hours is a lot

In World of Warcraft a player would pay game price + 150 dollars subscriptions if he played 3 hours per day for 333 days = 1000 hours. These subs allow to improve support and add new content. We only charge the game price - we always promised limited content and never promised that our game has 1000+ hours of quality gameplay. We have well enough for 40 dollars. Our game is in top 5 steam games based on average hours per player (99 hours).

Part 1. Early access contract.

We believed we had a contract with our early access players.

• We give players the chance to play the game earlier than usual, we listen to their proposals and implement a lot of them, Simple example - free town deliveries = was coded based on a player proposal. OW was a player proposal. We also agreed to not add micro transactions before release and to not charge subscription for an MMO during development. Long term players in other games usually pay for their mmos in form of subs or premium content or quality of life content.
• In turn. Players allow us to experiment and forgive early access content and mistakes.

This is how early access is supposed to work. Experimenting = doing good things and bad things to a game to test and stretch and find perfect features that might have been missed. First atomic bomb experiments were negative and if reviews were used to judge Einstein and manhattan project team the world would never see nuclear energy.

Part 2. Jaded players with lots of hours.

Some players don't like the experiments despite the fact that it was promised. Some players also expect something they hope to receive even though we were very careful with what we say and never promised anything beyond what is listed on our Steam green light page and steam store page.

For such players the game was awesome first 999 hours and then turns into an ugly monster on 1000th hour. They leave the warning to others denying them the first 100-200 hours of fun, knowing that first 100 hours are in fact very good because the game is new to those people. It could be boring after 1000th hours - but 99% of games are boring after 100. 

It is still the best multiplayer age of sail game out there. And we do have the best ship selection of all age of sail games ever done. Some of the rough things are experiments. We are a small developer and being small and commercially brutal we wont be hesitating cutting things if necessary. Including the whole open world. 

Part 3. Not all reviews are equal.

There are 3 groups of reviewers.

1. Group 1: People who are already happy with current game already got what they wanted and wont change the reviews whatever happens because ships, yards and age of sail
2. Group 2. Players who are unhappy with everything don't need anything new and just hate the game so they don't care and want the game to die.
3. Group 3. Players who are unhappy with something and change the early access reviews back and forth using them as warning or weapon, or some kind of messaging system

If you left a negative review because of things other than combat and ships and visuals, but still play or want to come back to something better later - we do suggest to change your view and return to judging the game once its ready and finalized. Remember that there are really no good multiplayer games about age of sail with proper ships, shooting and sailing.

If players who are unhappy about certain features (but not the age of sail game in general) will use reviews as weapon they will definitely never get the game they want. The reason is simple. Lower reviews = less sales = no funds to experiment or add new content. 

Part 4. Next steps

You have all probably witnessed that there is no new ship selection voting planned. We have ran several player selections before where players chose the ship we must make. Many awesome ships appeared in game because of such votes. Ingermanland, Santisima Trinidad, Ocean, Rattlesnake and several others. We cannot afford a new player ship selection voting because of mixed reviews. We are a MMO and have to pay for servers and support teams. We don't have microtransactions and subscriptions to pay for content thus such reviews from group 3 could create a vicious cycle. 

1. Group 3 players want more content and leave negative review
2. New players stop buying because of negative reviews
3. Developers stop developing because there is no other sub income or microtransactions income to support new content
4. Group 3 players leave even more negative reviews because development is even slower now
5. Only group 1 people are happy because they buy the game because of ships and combat and dont care about roe bugs, port battles problems and other things. 

Thus there are 2 options if nothing changes

1. focus only on group 1 and new players, cutting content that is inadequate and/or will take long time to cook
2. charge subscriptions and sell ships and quality of life for money allowing to add content despite low new players sales during development

Option 3 exists but group 3 should reconsider how they approach reviews and should try think if they want to give devs some room to experiment and time to add new content 

I think you're missing the point of the reviews.. As the game is for sale on Steam the question isn't wether or not players have "misunderstood" the "contract" of EA - but rather wether or not the players at this current time of development can endorse the game and it's developing team. I for one cannot and therefore will update my review according to game development. Atm this game caters to a very specific type of hardcore players and that's what my review should reflect. Can I or can I not recommend an EA title that has focussed development in a direction that makes it harder for new players to start, harder to find any action - timesink (ring a bell?) and harder to get PB (used to be a deadsure way to get PvP action) and harder to craft - timesink, trade - timesink.

[Pelennor]

3 hours ago, admin said:

 if reviews were used to judge Einstein and manhattan project team the world would never see nuclear energy.

If I may a short off topic: Einstein never participated to manhattan project or worked on any research related with the bomb.

[Neverdead Ned]

4 hours ago, admin said:

Option 3 exists but group 3 should reconsider how they approach reviews and should try think if they want to give devs some room to experiment and time to add new content 

Threats? Very mature.  Now that will convince people to stop giving honest opinions.....

[Angus McGregor]

I don't get it.  One minute people are complaining that there's no feedback from the devs. But then that feedback comes as a frank and honest appraisal of the situation as the devs see it, it's interpreted as "threats" and "get in line or we'll burn it down by removing OW and/or you'll never get a new ship".

First - continuing to work on OW and trying make it work will require months of continuing development effort. They are risking a lot to try to deliver the OW. It would be far easier for GL to say "Screw it, the OW experiment isn't working. We're going with what works in all our other games (WoT, WoWp, WoWs) . World of Sail and MOAB style it is." That would thrill some but isn't what the majority requested and isn't what I want.

Second - you think all these gorgeous ship models and the time invested in figuring out the gameplay balance between them all just falls out of the sky for free? As for our involvement, we help them "tweak" a few things. We aren't the ones creating the datafiles, poring over datasheets and sitting in project meetings hammering out the original drafts. Those activities and the facilities they take place in cost real actual cash, and no small amount of it either.

Time... that's what the devs are asking for when they say "Option 3 exists but group 3 should reconsider how they approach reviews and should try think if they want to give devs some room to experiment and time to add new content." Reserving judgement and not reviewing at all right now is what they're asking you to think about. It isn't a threat for FFS, it's a warning. Negative reviews dry up the cashflow. Dry up the cashflow enough and it'll be negative reviews that "burn it down", not GameLabs. What do people think happens when an upcoming game that sounds wonderful just fades into vaporware? The company developing it either pulled the plug or collapsed is what happened.

In all honesty - it's good that some have reserved judgement and not reviewed NA yet. I gave it a thumbs up because for the most part I was on the PvE server and absolutely loved NA. Then I switched to PvP1 and the 9.96 patch came. I'm definitely less than pleased now and kinda wish I'd held off on the review. But I've given feedback and am now patiently waiting to see what comes next. I'm giving them time.

[Lord Vicious]

5 hours ago, admin said:

1000 hours is a lot

In World of Warcraft a player would pay game price + 150 dollars subscriptions if he played 3 hours per day for 333 days = 1000 hours. These subs allow to improve support and add new content. We only charge the game price - we always promised limited content and never promised that our game has 1000+ hours of quality gameplay. We have well enough for 40 dollars. Our game is in top 5 steam games based on average hours per player (99 hours).

Part 1. Early access contract.

We believed we had a contract with our early access players.

• We give players the chance to play the game earlier than usual, we listen to their proposals and implement a lot of them, Simple example - free town deliveries = was coded based on a player proposal. OW was a player proposal. We also agreed to not add micro transactions before release and to not charge subscription for an MMO during development. Long term players in other games usually pay for their mmos in form of subs or premium content or quality of life content.
• In turn. Players allow us to experiment and forgive early access content and mistakes.

This is how early access is supposed to work. Experimenting = doing good things and bad things to a game to test and stretch and find perfect features that might have been missed. First atomic bomb experiments were negative and if reviews were used to judge Einstein and manhattan project team the world would never see nuclear energy.

Part 2. Jaded players with lots of hours.

Some players don't like the experiments despite the fact that it was promised. Some players also expect something they hope to receive even though we were very careful with what we say and never promised anything beyond what is listed on our Steam green light page and steam store page.

For such players the game was awesome first 999 hours and then turns into an ugly monster on 1000th hour. They leave the warning to others denying them the first 100-200 hours of fun, knowing that first 100 hours are in fact very good because the game is new to those people. It could be boring after 1000th hours - but 99% of games are boring after 100. 

It is still the best multiplayer age of sail game out there. And we do have the best ship selection of all age of sail games ever done. Some of the rough things are experiments. We are a small developer and being small and commercially brutal we wont be hesitating cutting things if necessary. Including the whole open world. 

Part 3. Not all reviews are equal.

There are 3 groups of reviewers.

1. Group 1: People who are already happy with current game already got what they wanted and wont change the reviews whatever happens because ships, yards and age of sail
2. Group 2. Players who are unhappy with everything don't need anything new and just hate the game so they don't care and want the game to die.
3. Group 3. Players who are unhappy with something and change the early access reviews back and forth using them as warning or weapon, or some kind of messaging system

If you left a negative review because of things other than combat and ships and visuals, but still play or want to come back to something better later - we do suggest to change your view and return to judging the game once its ready and finalized. Remember that there are really no good multiplayer games about age of sail with proper ships, shooting and sailing.

If players who are unhappy about certain features (but not the age of sail game in general) will use reviews as weapon they will definitely never get the game they want. The reason is simple. Lower reviews = less sales = no funds to experiment or add new content. 

Part 4. Next steps

You have all probably witnessed that there is no new ship selection voting planned. We have ran several player selections before where players chose the ship we must make. Many awesome ships appeared in game because of such votes. Ingermanland, Santisima Trinidad, Ocean, Rattlesnake and several others. We cannot afford a new player ship selection voting because of mixed reviews. We are a MMO and have to pay for servers and support teams. We don't have microtransactions and subscriptions to pay for content thus such reviews from group 3 could create a vicious cycle. 

1. Group 3 players want more content and leave negative review
2. New players stop buying because of negative reviews
3. Developers stop developing because there is no other sub income or microtransactions income to support new content
4. Group 3 players leave even more negative reviews because development is even slower now
5. Only group 1 people are happy because they buy the game because of ships and combat and dont care about roe bugs, port battles problems and other things. 

Thus there are 2 options if nothing changes

1. focus only on group 1 and new players, cutting content that is inadequate and/or will take long time to cook
2. charge subscriptions and sell ships and quality of life for money allowing to add content despite low new players sales during development

Option 3 exists but group 3 should reconsider how they approach reviews and should try think if they want to give devs some room to experiment and time to add new content 

 

 

1) Stop compare your game with other games or your sh with other sh you do this over and over,  look they did it bad, they worst then us, this game not give you as much h as our,  that means nothing,  we have shitload of H in na becouse na it have a lot of timesink, only a small part of that h in game was actually FUN.  so h in game tells nothing.   

my 200h in cod are more fun then 200h in eve online where 70% is travel time-organizing etc.      

 

2) ppl is Angry becouse after the fantastic sea trials,     the game not made rilevant progress, lets face it pb still the same as a year+ ago , some floating towers and thats it.       Even now 1 year and half later some stupid things like the white cross sword that represent an epic event still white instead a better bright color for help visibility.

 

You introduced some feature and then left it broken or unfinished,  like clan warehouse,     skins? events, officers,     pb system,   every 2-3 months  some numbers change  but overall the system still the same beside sometimes something get added to make it even  worst. more time consuming less fun etc    if you not focus on fix issues and finish features, like pirates.. You will get more and more angry ppl

 

the game is in a sorry state same of the community,   and instead talk loud and clear  all is very uncertain.  And ppl still leaving left and right.     Seams that you lost all interest on finishing it

 

 

3) Most important you seams to spend more time debate with players if they got the product they payd for, wich they seams to not agree, instead fix the game, and put down a development plan. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Lord Vicious

[The Spud]

I think in all this we need to define what a review is supposed to represent. And I think allot of players are reviewing based on, "Has this game reached its full potential" and not "Is this game its money's worth".

Cause on the first question I would say "No, it has not reached it full potential at this moment" and on the second one I would say "Most definitely". Anyone buying a game on steam wants to know "Is it worth its money?" and "Does it have game breaking bugs and crashes". By reading the reviews on steam, I would say they do not correctly answer the first question. And in my opinion I would be falsly led to believe that I would buy this game play it for 10 hours and then just quit it.

I have talked to many of the newer players RECENTLY, and they are ALL very enthousiastic about this game. I'm regularly talking to a guy who just loves to sail around and catch fish and do the occasional mission on PvP1 and I know another guy on PvE that does the same and likes it equaly much.

So I think this game is its moneys worth to any type of player, and I think the reviews should represent that and not discuss about "loss of potential" or anything like that. If you say 200 hours in CoD are more action packed then 200 hours in NA, you're right, but 20 hours of action in naval action is better than 200 hours of action in CoD or any other game, so in 200 hours of NA i think I get the same fun of any hours of FPS shooting.

Would be a shame to have players who would actualy realy enjoy this game, just not enjoying it for a review written from a wrong point of view.

 

[jodgi]

Shut up about the warehouse, Vicious!

They asked us "Do you want this feature even though it won't be perfect and won't be touched for months? Or should we wait?"

We said yes.

This discussion is noisy enough without everyone throwing stuff like that into the mix. Warehouse, skins and officers isn't even broken

 

8 hours ago, admin said:

It could be boring after 1000th hours - but 99% of games are boring after 100.

I knew I was a special snowflake! 100% of the games I play are fun after 1, 2 or several years. Naval Action is on that (short) list.

TIL: I don't play normal games.

[PIerrick de Badas]

As french nation is collapsing the big groups in are easier to view. Since the last patch EdR have recruit so many players that we may make delay our recruitement for soem time to take care of all this new players.

The last patch hurt many people with this hard eco making fine wood the materials to get when every others materials are nothing in regard of fine wood. Anyway, we work hard on it with our clan and tradders are manage to get the upper hand on it. We are now again leading any eco activity allowing us to craft eh ships we want.

Sadly for the small grousp and the independant it was harder. They coul'nt manage to survive against big eco company and the necessity to get fine wood make them lost their interest to collect others ressources.

Introducing something to break the eco was necessary as everyone was sailing in exeptionnal ships. I think devs should have change the time labor necessayr to craft ships or improve the number of already existing ressources to make eco harder rather than introduce a RNG ressources.

Anyway, it makes so many people leave and so many people unhappy that it surprise me. It's harde to give people normal food when they eated exptionnal everyday. It's the same for craft.

If your are too keen with people on start, they won't accept you to be normal after that.

I'm around 2k hours on NA and still enjoying the fight on it. I agree that RvR was not a real succes. Flag system was so broken that everyone wanted this new patch with impatience but the necessity to pve like pigs disgut me.

The game was a pvp game and now everyone is waiting  a bomb to explose to be able to make a pb. On the others hand, some are whinniong about the bomb but beleive me, if you make this bomb limited to 50% it will be no more pb exept if you changes something. (remeber on potbs, beeing ina pvp area improve unrest). You didn't have to pve, just to be there in front of an ennemy port.

Anyway to go back on subject, it's a hsame to see people using reviex to threat the game becasue it's all it is, threat.

Admin is human, a bit too human to make good communication but not a liar. THis review are nothing more than THREAT and if i can agree with almost everything vicscious said (why the hell introducing new features and not finishing them? Pray? Officer? Warhouse? Social page?)

i pay 40$ a game i play 2000hour, 2cent per hour... i didn't enjoy all the hours but it's still my best price/fun experience i ever had online...

[admin]

4 hours ago, Stroopwafel said:

Threats? Very mature.  Now that will convince people to stop giving honest opinions.....

Threats? I think you have not understood the message. 

Those are not threats - those are just facts.
Ships and features don't grow on trees and we use early access to fund development. We have no publisher because after POTBS no-one wanted to fund an age of sail OW game. Players like you did.

Current content is enough for 1000+ hours for many people - we just wont be able to cater to disgruntled veterans any more. Not because we don't want to - we cant afford it as people don't buy games with mixed reviews. So the fact is = mixed review - no new content. Because mixed reviews are mostly coming from the veterans (not new players) it becomes obvious to us that veterans dont want this game to get new content. 

Underdeveloped features and experiments are a main source of frustration now for many. Thus we wont waste money on adding new things any more. We will finish UI and cut unfinished underdeveloped features before release, making the game better for new players and those who is only interested in combat. Which is not bad for people who like the game and new players. 

[JollyRoger1516]

1 minute ago, admin said:

Threats? I think you have not understood the message. 

Those are not threats - those are just facts.
Ships and features don't grow on trees and we use early access to fund development. We have no publisher because after POTBS no-one wanted to fund an age of sail OW game. Players like you did.

Current content is enough for 1000+ hours for many people - we just wont be able to cater to disgruntled veterans any more. Not because we don't want to - we cant afford it as people don't buy games. So the fact is = mixed review - no new content.

Underdeveloped features and experiments are a main source of frustration now. Thus we wont waste money on adding new things any more. We will finish UI and cut unfinished underdeveloped features before release, making the game better for new players and those who is only interested in combat. Which is not bad for people who like the game and new players. 

I suggest you take a day off to calm down mate! Quite frankly I am one of those veterans and such statements aren't exactly helping the relationship between palyers and dev team. I udnerstand that we can be very demanding and know it all but we ahve also seen mroe than one game and some of us are devs themselves so don't consider us a waste of your time.

Concerning your future plans - does that mean that traders and crafters are being left behind now? I would find it very sad to see more aspects of the game being left out of development now. Witht he alst patch the Australians already got effectively kicked out of the game and I would hate to see more groups of players being left out...

[admin]

2 minutes ago, JollyRoger1516 said:

I suggest you take a day off to calm down mate! Quite frankly I am one of those veterans and such statements aren't exactly helping the relationship between palyers and dev team. I udnerstand that we can be very demanding and know it all but we ahve also seen mroe than one game and some of us are devs themselves so don't consider us a waste of your time.

Let me understand

• If you let yourself to be direct and honest
• But you don't let others to be honest and direct in their answers

There is nothing angry in my post mate, nothing to calm down about. Those are cold facts. 

+ direct and honest communication IS the best way to build the relationship between players and dev team. 

[BoomBox]

28 minutes ago, admin said:

Threats? I think you have not understood the message. 

Those are not threats - those are just facts.
Ships and features don't grow on trees and we use early access to fund development. We have no publisher because after POTBS no-one wanted to fund an age of sail OW game. Players like you did.

Current content is enough for 1000+ hours for many people - we just wont be able to cater to disgruntled veterans any more. Not because we don't want to - we cant afford it as people don't buy games with mixed reviews. So the fact is = mixed review - no new content. Because mixed reviews are mostly coming from the veterans (not new players) it becomes obvious to us that veterans dont want this game to get new content. 

Underdeveloped features and experiments are a main source of frustration now for many. Thus we wont waste money on adding new things any more. We will finish UI and cut unfinished underdeveloped features before release, making the game better for new players and those who is only interested in combat. Which is not bad for people who like the game and new players. 

 

thx for the honest words and i am really sorry to hear that. i love playing the game . i am one of the few , the proud, the pve players . just love comin home , sitting down and playin NA for an hour or two or three. i know most ppl say pve doesnt make any sense and it really doesnt but to be honest i like it. and for all it's worth thanks for it.

Edited December 2, 2016 by BoomBox

[Vaan De Vries]

Sadly Admin is right.

I am glad I bought this game long ago when it had "Mostly Positive" on Steam. Cause now I would be completely f***ed up by haters reviews.

Half of the negative reviews are simply whining written by haters with no constructive feedback (like it's too hard to craft, devs are the worst. oh my god I was gnaked, etc). And, sadly. such reviews are killing the game slowly.

We also have to understand that problem with a lot of "unfinished" features are caused by us, players. We are always complaining and asking for a new features without giving devs time to fix old ones.

 

And you know what - from my perspective of lone non-clan player (but still participating in PBs from time to time) playing about 1-1.30 hours a day after work:

* New crafting with all it's "hardness" is still 100 times better than the old ones. I like the challenge required to craft really exceptional ship. Sailing bermuda cedar speed Surprise in OW is awesome as sailing mahogany british refit Aga in PB. And it doesn't require so many time spent sailing or actively doing anything in game. Just wait a couple of weeks to collect all needed mats. And while they are being collected I can hunt for OW PVP all my free time.

* New PB system with all bombing is 100 times better than old flag system. I remember with horror the days of flag abuse. The necessity to be on guard all evening and not getting any PB in the end. It was hell for someone who is really tied up with time left for playing game. There was too much time wasting and too little actual PBs. At least now 90% of scheduled PB happen and everybody can participate and have fun finally

* I love regional bonuses and the reward for ones willing to risk and sail away from capital to build better ships. Not just sitting on their sterns all day in capitals

* I love new raking damage - even it can be too big sometimes, but at least the days of stern tanking as part of "skilled" game is over. And still in frigate PvP when both persons know what they are doing it's very hard to get a good rake.

 

So, all in all. The game is really CHEAP for the amount of fun it provides. The game IS becoming better with every path. The DEVS ARE LISTENING to the community but maybe THEY SHOULD LISTEN LESS.

I really don't understand people who are leaving bad reviews. For me like 75% of them are just whiners and haters who are sadly killing the game just because someone ganked them during AFK sailing or because it's too hard for them to use traders tool. Makes me feel sad for today's gaming community.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Vaan De Vries

[Guest]

2 hours ago, The Spud said:

I think in all this we need to define what a review is supposed to represent. And I think allot of players are reviewing based on, "Has this game reached its full potential" and not "Is this game its money's worth".

Cause on the first question I would say "No, it has not reached it full potential at this moment" and on the second one I would say "Most definitely". Anyone buying a game on steam wants to know "Is it worth its money?" and "Does it have game breaking bugs and crashes". By reading the reviews on steam, I would say they do not correctly answer the first question. And in my opinion I would be falsly led to believe that I would buy this game play it for 10 hours and then just quit it.

I have talked to many of the newer players RECENTLY, and they are ALL very enthousiastic about this game. I'm regularly talking to a guy who just loves to sail around and catch fish and do the occasional mission on PvP1 and I know another guy on PvE that does the same and likes it equaly much.

So I think this game is its moneys worth to any type of player, and I think the reviews should represent that and not discuss about "loss of potential" or anything like that. If you say 200 hours in CoD are more action packed then 200 hours in NA, you're right, but 20 hours of action in naval action is better than 200 hours of action in CoD or any other game, so in 200 hours of NA i think I get the same fun of any hours of FPS shooting.

Would be a shame to have players who would actualy realy enjoy this game, just not enjoying it for a review written from a wrong point of view.

 

Perhaps you will write the review for everyone? - I don't agree.. I accept, and respect your right to have an opinion, I'll even defend your right to have one that differs from mine.. but I cannot recommend this game to just everyone. I believe it cater to a very specific audience and that specific audience will find that the game has a lot of potential - I find the game has a huge potential, I find the game developers do not take that potential seriously and I do no believe this game is atm worth around 37€..

[Hethwill]

If anything, not every game is for everyone, at least we all should know that and it is indeed aimed at a specific audience.

In any case Curators are definitely a better choice for reviews. They are not subject to marketing deals for the most part and are representative of community groups as opposed to individuals.

http://store.steampowered.com/curators/curatorsreviewing/?appid=311310

[Guest]

1 hour ago, admin said:

Threats? I think you have not understood the message. 

Those are not threats - those are just facts.
Ships and features don't grow on trees and we use early access to fund development. We have no publisher because after POTBS no-one wanted to fund an age of sail OW game. Players like you did.

Current content is enough for 1000+ hours for many people - we just wont be able to cater to disgruntled veterans any more. Not because we don't want to - we cant afford it as people don't buy games with mixed reviews. So the fact is = mixed review - no new content. Because mixed reviews are mostly coming from the veterans (not new players) it becomes obvious to us that veterans dont want this game to get new content. 

Underdeveloped features and experiments are a main source of frustration now for many. Thus we wont waste money on adding new things any more. We will finish UI and cut unfinished underdeveloped features before release, making the game better for new players and those who is only interested in combat. Which is not bad for people who like the game and new players. 

This is just about the most moronic post I've read to date.. There's no correlation behind a bad review and a lack of desire for new content - the review would rather reflect the lack of quality in the "new" content. And let's face it - there's nothing new in introducing fine woods in the crafting system for example - that's just the same with a minor tweak. And the diplomacy patch was bugged, and now a month and a half later still is. The risk of getting bad reviews was taken by the devs in order to raise money. An increase in funding could have been achieved in a lot of different ways - crowdfunding, loans, selling off the project to investors and ofc selling copies of the game as EA - the final solution was taken and on steam (as in everywhere else gamers get EA) the risk of EA is that every review is a "state-of-the-game" adress.. And the overwhelmingly bad reviews lately reflects the state of the game, nothing more.. 

 

If you want better reviews - stop whining on your own forums and start fixing bugs, mechanics and above all: try to introduce some quality content. Some of the content added in the past 6 months have been so obviously bad ideas that I cannot fathom how it entered the game.. Like the events - good treasure hunt, that is untill you told everyone where the treasure was by making a huge blob on the map. Intended PvP? - not likely as noone knew who had a chest and who didn't. So many things in those events were not fully thought through and that's just one example of bad content. Do better and better reviews will come.

[Hethwill]

We should stop suggesting things then.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

We should stop suggesting things then.

 Not every suggestion needs to be taken as is..