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

[Angus McGregor]

2 hours ago, JollyRoger1516 said:

I haven't written any review for this game yet due to several reasons.

1. I rarely write reviews in the first place. I reserve that for games I found extreme enjoyment in or that need an absolute no buy warning.
2. I near to never write reviews for unfinished games at least when I still have the intention to continue playing them and the devs have the intention to continue developing their game.
3. I don't have the time or energy to write a review as I am currently writing my dissertation which is mroe important to me than a computer games review.
4. If I were to write a review I would wait for the next patch as that one will determine the future of Naval Action with people either returning or this game needing a clear don't buy recommendation as I can't entice people to buy into a game with no population. Players aren't state funds - you can't demand of me to advertise for new ones to get you a new batch of disposable players. Upon early access launch you get a certain amount of players and either you please those into furthering your advertisement or you fuck it up and have them warn people to stay away. That is the currency of teh devs and I must say so far they haven't spent it wisely!
5. If I were to write a review now it clearly would be negative as I cannot find any fun in the game with my limited time and the overal development direction this game is taking. This is a personal opinion but so are the reviews.
6. There is a difference between salt and sadness! Most people that write these reviews don't do it out of spite but because they are sad the game didn't develop along the hopes they ahd for it whether those are justified or not!

FYI I currently have over 1250 hours in this game and yes I got my money's worth out of it but that doesn't mean a person that buys the game now will!

This is a reasonable approach for someone still here, but isn't at all happy with the game since the last patch.

 

[Kloothommel]

20 hours ago, Magnum said:

The OP in his title already called anyone who disagrees with him "as unworthy of grace" and then launches into a rant apparently in an effort to justify such a sad sad view of the world.

Of course, people will disagree, will kibitz, will rant - but as it is today the game lacks joy "for me" so AS IS MY RIGHT as a Steam member - I express in my own clumsy way said lack of joy along with where I feel the main "lack of joy" is coming from = Desertion of responsibility by the mods on this forum and therefore including the Dev's who picked them and keep them.

You are free to disagree with my personal viewpoint about what is right and what is wrong with the game - but calling me names and implying I could never hold down a job will not work.

The OP is simply a bully. And as you would expect has even resorted to leaving "Aw, grow up" messages as replies to reviews he didn't like - I mean come on, if the game can't be fun lets bully those who are not having fun into giving good reviews anyway .......

Funny, as you untill recently had something like "I hope my negative review doesn't hurt the devs like the stripping of my tester status" in your signature. I guess you feel adressed by the OP. So i guess your negative review is pure salt about your tester status.

Also about the bully bit: Pot, kettle. I've seen your posts.

[Magnum]

6 minutes ago, Kloothommel said:

Funny, as you untill recently had something like "I hope my negative review doesn't hurt the devs like the stripping of my tester status" in your signature. I guess you feel adressed by the OP. So i guess your negative review is pure salt about your tester status.

Also about the bully bit: Pot, kettle. I've seen your posts.

Called it - "Of course, people will disagree, will kibitz, will rant"

Nice to know someone in far off "Holland" pays attention to little old me .....

Edited November 28, 2016 by Magnum

[Werewolf]

14 hours ago, Angus McGregor said:

Publicly naming and insulting them? What on earth are you talking about? No names were cited - not one. Is this a guilty conscience speaking?

I'm fairly certain the screenshots were to provide indisputable proof that they had played NA for *months*... a freaking YEAR and more in a few cases. Most AAA games are expected to provide 50-60 hours of playing time. So they certainly can't claim they didn't get their money's worth. But instead of realizing their $39.95 investment had rewarded them handsomely, they decide to try to crap all over our chances of ending up with something better.

Publishing a bad review if you think the game still has potential is just shooting not only yourself, but everyone else in the foot. Yeah - not appreciated... thanks a heap for that you morons! I can only assume these twits would rather try to ensure there's no 'Age of Sail' MMO than one which didn't cater to their every little whim. So sorry if the devs or the other players and their ideas hurt your little feel bads.

Selfish little gits....

Guilty conscience? No, my man. That would require me to give a shit what anyone thinks. I dont. I paid the same as everyone else. If I want to leave a bad review, I will. Deal with it.

[Neverdead Ned]

 

You want to talk about disgraceful behavior, enabling shilling of this game with lame award nominations and the public shaming of people's honest reviews pretty much sums it up.

I have just over 1500 hours since the beginning of Feb.   The last patch was a game killer for me.  The only thing that keeps me still playing is the friends I have made in the game.  I have not left a negative review but I fully intend to if I don't see any improvements in the next patch.  No amount of desperate public shaming is going to keep me from giving my honest opinions in any review.  This isn't about getting my "money's worth" because I certainly did back before that last patch.  There is no point in putting a review up of how great the game was...the review will be about the current state of the game in my opinion period.

[Hethwill]

It is not a gentle game for a newcomer regarding the spread out information and the complexity of combat.

It is very cruel for a non social gamer but not outright impossible to pick up if the said player is observant and intelligent.

In its basic state is a easy to pick up but hell hard to master combat game. In its Conquest state it is hard to pick up, given it is all player driven.

Doesn't run on rails if the player doesn't want. There's no objective except the ones that player chooses to set, like missions and conquest battles, or maybe get rich by trade.

I feel for every newcomer that is rushed through the ranks by its buddies. I feel for every newcomer that is rushed by uninmaginative powergamer buddies.

They do indeed get driven away, not by lack of quality of the game but by lack of tact by many players.

Like a IL-2 FB, it is not a game with a end. It is ready to be played anytime without any compromises. There's no objective except the ones that we set for ourselves.

 

[Wesreidau]

A Steam review is not "Did I get my $40 worth". It is "Will you get your $40 worth". If anything, a thousand hour player knows more about the good and the bad and his negative review should draw serious concern, not this petty shame and derision. 

[JollyRoger1516]

1 hour ago, Wesreidau said:

A Steam review is not "Did I get my $40 worth". It is "Will you get your $40 worth". If anything, a thousand hour player knows more about the good and the bad and his negative review should draw serious concern, not this petty shame and derision. 

To sum all this up in the end this is what counts. I paid and I played - steam therefore allows me to write a review of my own design within the steam limitations. And as long as the author of a review is not lying out of his arse ALL of us will have to accept his opinion and understanding of the development direction. There should have never been a debate about this. If the devs feel misunderstood about the direction they are taking they should take a close look whether the guy was actually just salty or in fact the problem leis with their communication to the players and a lack of making the development intentions clear to people!

[Marques]

It seems to me...this four keys were forgotten....

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.!!!

[Jeheil]

I guess a confusing element here is the fact the reviews are for a game in alpha and still under development.

Imagine this on a house being built

The Plans look fantastic 3 thumbs up

Solid foundations I rate this 4 green bananas

We moved in downstairs we are so excited I give it "over 9000"

Damn rained all day after recent changes and this place doesnt even have a roof...I am moving out.

The electricity has outlets but isnt even connected...thats it for me...cya (--> can I have your stuff)

Now the roof is going up and all I think it still has potential...but I wanted solar panels on top...waaaaahhhhh

Wait this is a house...I thought it was an apartment...how do I get my money back

[NorthernWolves]

18 hours ago, Werewolf said:

Ashamed of their childish, petulant behavior, says the guy who took the time to screenshot these accounts and make a big post about it. People are entitled to their opinions. They paid the same as you. Perhaps the game was enjoyable for them before a patch ruined it for them. Pretty sure publicly naming and insulting them isn't going to win any of them back or help the game.

That is not childish young man, that is holding people to account for childish behavior. Did I post any names? I stand by every word.

[Sea Nettle]

Mine. It would seem petty moderators have pissed quite a few people off reading this thread. I guess the power of censoring others comes at a price in a forum those censors don't control.

Deal with it. Those abused by players in game who get off on controlling others opinion through selective application of the rules had to.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Sea Nettle

[Werewolf]

33 minutes ago, NorthernWolves said:

That is not childish young man, that is holding people to account for childish behavior. Did I post any names? I stand by every word.

Do what you do, "young man". You're only making yourself look like a giant asshole. Inferring that people must now "account" to you because you posted this dribble is just.... mindblowing. Noone owes you jack shit. Grow up, mind your own business, and stop spreading garbage around. It attracts flies.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Werewolf

[Wesreidau]

1 hour ago, Jeheil said:

I guess a confusing element here is the fact the reviews are for a game in alpha and still under development.

The fact that it is in development invalidates the argument that we "got our $40 worth". We're not paying for a completed game, we're paying for the privilege of alpha-testing a game. If we put up with bugs and exploits and bad patches and still gave a positive review because "it might improve", we're doing a tremendous disservice to both potential buyers and the developers themselves. Without tangible negative feedback, the development team won't know if they are going off the rails until release. If its going to be a terrible game on release, I'd rather it die a quiet death and spare the studio the humiliation of a 98% Steam Reviewed alpha game turning out to be broken as hell. Likewise, if the devs release a patch and see a positive upswing in Steam reviews, they know that the honest opinion of the non-forum-goers, the opinion they give their friends, is improving. It is more important we be honest with the developers and the public than make sure the OP of this thread doesn't throw childish insults at us.

And I really hope the upcoming patch gives me cause to flip my review.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Wesreidau

[Christendom]

Interesting post from the OP who barely plays, has zero involvement within his own nation and self admittedly finds the game boring.  Majority of the reviews are spot on and If I had to recommend this CURRENT game to another person I wouldn't.  

Edited November 28, 2016 by Christendom

[akd]

30 minutes ago, Christendom said:

Interesting post from the OP who barely plays, has zero involvement within his own nation and self admittedly finds the game boring.  Majority of the reviews are spot on and If I had to recommend this CURRENT game to another person I wouldn't.  

I wouldn't recommend an early access game to anyone who isn't interested in being both a player and tester.  Part of testing is enduring unpleasant experiences, providing feedback, and waiting patiently for solutions, then repeat.  But I also wouldn't give an early access game with potential a negative review, because it would discourage potential players that might be interested in the early access experience, despite its drawbacks.  I agree with Northern that most (not all) of these people with very high hours in game do not think the game is truly without potential, or some trash title trying to be passed of as a serious development effort (EA is full of those). It is simply not possible that they could have been hoodwinked into wasting that much time.

Instead, many are probably playing the bad review blackmail game (I give an EA game a bad review in the belief that the bad reviews will redirect development of an EA game resulting in a released game that I will then give a good review). That actually backfires, because it doesn't redirect development, it starves development of needed resources. And again, the principle problem beneath most complaints is low population, so people dolling out bad reviews for misguided reasons (again some, but not all) is simply amplifying the problem.  Everything else has been additions of features requested by community, or minor (in the grand scheme of things) incremental changes.  Now everyone has their pet peeve among those many changes (including me!), but alone that does not consistent grounds for a bad review, especially for an early access game.

It is a fundamental problem with early access games, both on the developer and the player side.  It is stupid that Steam does not allow you to write a review for an early access game with an "undecided" recommendation.

Edited November 28, 2016 by akd

[Neverdead Ned]

23 minutes ago, akd said:

I wouldn't recommend an early access game to anyone who isn't interested in being both a player and tester.  Part of testing is enduring unpleasant experiences, providing feedback, and waiting patiently for solutions, then repeat.  But I also wouldn't give an early access game with potential a negative review, because it would discourage potential players that might be interested in the early access experience, despite its drawbacks.  I agree with Northern that most (not all) of these people with very high hours in game do not think the game is truly without potential, or some trash title trying to be passed of as a serious development effort (EA is full of those). It is simply not possible that they could have been hoodwinked into wasting that much time.

Instead, many are probably playing the bad review blackmail game (I give an EA game a bad review in the belief that the bad reviews will redirect development of an EA game resulting in a released game that I will then give a good review). That actually backfires, because it doesn't redirect development, it starves development of needed resources. And again, the principle problem beneath most complaints is low population, so people dolling out bad reviews for misguided reasons (again some, but not all) is simply amplifying the problem.  Everything else has been additions of features requested by community, or minor (in the grand scheme of things) incremental changes.  Now everyone has their pet peeve among those many changes (including me!), but alone that does not consistent grounds for a bad review, especially for an early access game.

It is a fundamental problem with early access games, both on the developer and the player side.  It is stupid that Steam does not allow you to write a review for an early access game with an "undecided" recommendation.

It's not that you don't make some good points but you know what they say about making assumptions about people motives.....lemme bring up a scenario of my own.

Steam provides a great vehicle for reviews and feedback for someone who might have been feeling rebuffed and or unnecessarily censored by the often dismissive  devs and moderators on this forum.  Ultimately, if something stinks, the smell is going to get out no matter how hard you try to mask it.

[Vernon Merrill]

2 hours ago, Christendom said:

Interesting post from the OP who barely plays, has zero involvement within his own nation and self admittedly finds the game boring.  Majority of the reviews are spot on and If I had to recommend this CURRENT game to another person I wouldn't.  

Maybe you just need a break.....(?)  you know, like people who have carried the nation before you arrived did.

[Chijohnaok]

Anyone else think that the 7 simultaneous War Supply bomb/Port Battles will result in a spike of positive reviews to the game?    

Edited November 29, 2016 by Chijohnaok

[Jeheil]

37 minutes ago, Chijohnaok said:

Anyone else think that the 7 simultaneous War Supply bomb/Port Battles will result in a spike of positive reviews to the game?    

This is a known problem the Dev's SAID they are going to fix. It is the playing community who chose to take advantage of this game mechanic loophole. So should we be reviewing our own behavior rather than that of the game. It has been shown 3 times in the last 16 port battles that you can raise hostility via the intended mechanics...and 13 times that you can do it via a hostility bomb.

An amazing logisitical effort to smuggle in on main/alt accounts so many supplies...and then have all 7 folks set em off at the same time. So well done there.

Now lets imagine that this assault results on the brits/dutch/usa losing 3 or 4 key ports...will some just say @#$@# it and leave. I suspect so. Is that the games fault ? The Dev's say they intend to prevent this in the next patch...its the players who chose to exploit.

I cannot play in any of them as its a 4am-6am on a workday for me. But I hope for one of three things.

1) When the devs put the new port battles in on Wednesday they wipe these port battles from the map

2) They stay true to form and on entering the battle the attackers discover :

a) they cant get in b ) the battle is over in 6 mins unless the attacker does x c) you need 4 mortar brigs or you are wiped out by the 8 port batteries

3) The allies bravely defend them all

 

Oh and the last time this many bombs were dropped on us....it was called AdlerTag...how did that work out

Edited November 29, 2016 by Jeheil

[Lord Vicious]

tbh bad reviews of 600+1000h is syntomatic of a bad development, this ppl clearly enjoyed the game, and now no more

 

So instead cry that ppl with 1000+h give a bad reviews, some auto analysis on why dedicated ppl such that give bad review is more smart,  a guy who give a bad review after 10-50h just dont like the game, fine.   but ppl with 500-1500h is ppl who lost hope 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Lord Vicious

[Christendom]

1 minute ago, Lord Vicious said:

tbh bad reviews of 600+1000h is syntomatic of a bad development, this ppl clearly enjoyed the game, and now no more

 

So instead cry that ppl with 1000+h give a bad reviews, some auto analysis on why dedicated ppl such that give bad review is more smart,  a guy who give a bad review after 10-50h just dont like the game, fine.   but ppl with 500-1500h is ppl who lost hope 

I hate to say it, but I agree with LV here.  Don't blame the reviewers, blame the devs

[BallsOfSteel]

Bring back flags with no port timers up to a max of six flags a day per 2hr timezone :), for raids only holding possession of port for 24 hrs and then reverting back to owner A Disruption for war supplies for sure .

[Vernon Merrill]

#timetogodutch.  Look familiar?

Theres a reason a ton of the old-school TDA and TF guys don't get involved in the RvR anymore.  Only part of it has to do with the game mechanics.  

Edited November 29, 2016 by Vernon Merrill

[Christendom]

18 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:

#timetogodutch.  Look familiar?

You mean a joke response to getting 6 war supply dropped today?  Good one.  You got me there.  Appreciate that you're at least on our discord though.  

I get that your chief is being slammed hard on a rather stupid post he made, but dig harder for better insults next time forum warrior.  

Edited November 29, 2016 by Christendom