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

[Hethwill]

No loss versus perma loss.

Hard bargain but I know where I stand.

Millions of players do play ironman perma death games everyday.

Plus hardcore doesn't mean less playerbase. That's a myth installed by F2P models.

[Teutonic]

Maybe in reality I have just exhausted my enthusiasm for this game...but continuing to read this thread doesn't help my worries for the future of the game I remember and enjoyed.

It's probably best for me to just take a break and come back when more updates have come around.

Honestly though, even with the Admin is brutally honest in saying "bad reviews = no new content" that really is a red flag in my book. I totally understand the mindset here, but the many people I knew who played this game left a long time ago whether they left a review or not, they aren't coming back and believe me I tried pushing them back. NA is not, in it's current development, the game they and myself are willing to spend time playing. I eagerly wait for future patches and what I hope to be fixes from current broken mechanics, but I am not holding my breath.

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Teutonic

[JollyRoger1516]

2 hours ago, Snoopy said:

I never understood the reluctance to do skins + subscriptions/expansions or dare I say premium ships.
There is only so much interest in toon sailing boats and after that initial batch of sales.. how else will this game survive?

My wallet is ready.

The reluctance leis witht eh fact that this is a full price game and not free to play. Also you can hardly ask for money twice while the first product isn't done yet! That being said - I don't at all mind if you come out with a support model like elite dangerous did - skins are there to be bought and to support the game - could also be done for flags or other visuals. However I will strongly oppose premium ships! This is a full price game so we shoudl get all content equally and ships will always generate imbalances and lead to pay to win moments even when it gets nerfed 2 months later (look at war thunder). Like I said Elite Dangerous could serve this game as a very good example for several things - skin handling, ship availability (none of them is locked behind anything but being able to afford it) and missions especially trade missions could easily serve as a template for our game as well.

[Hethwill]

Ah okay. Obviously hardcore means a lot of different things.

I'd say a player spending 8 hours per session in a ego shooter is more hardcore than a 2 hour session sitting on a study air digital combat sim.

What differentiates them is the level of challenge and learning curve needed for their games of choice.

[admin]

please remember that this topic only covers one subject: A captain who played 1000+ hours, leaves a negative review and still plays and participates in development discussions. Because they are here on forum and are passionate about the game there are better ways to influence and improve the game. 

Overall the game has great positive reviews and has higher rating than no mans sky, or football manager or Skyrim special edition. If you like the game already - no need to be sad or unhappy. It will be finished and will be beautiful. Its just before we were too often listening to too many people adding unnecessary ingredients (or unfinished ingredients) - and we won't make this mistake any more. 

[Vernon Merrill]

Just, for the love of God, dont get rid of the Open World!!   Its gorgeous!

[TommyShelby]

Personally i don't make reviews of Early Access games. There will always (Always) be ups and downs in an Early Access game. 

I await the day of Naval Actions release before i put up a review of the game. 

I realise that leaving a positive review would be help the sales more but i simply do not like reviewing an EA Game. It changes all the time and in some periods i might want to change it to negative even though i think the game is great. 
Once done i will sit down and spend an hour, maybe more, on writing a review. I won't just be reviewing the game itself but also the Development process. 

Personally i don't look at reviews for Early Access games. I look up gameplay videos and if the game looks like something i'd like to try i get it. I know that the Steam Community very very often exaggerates about things being bad and even though a game has 50% negative ratings (Mixed status) it can still be great for me personally. 

[JollyRoger1516]

14 hours ago, admin said:

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. 

 

I wholeheartedly disagree with your idea that the reviews should be good because the game will be fun in the first hours.

1. This is a game that is emant to be palyed for hudnreds of hours and not jsut 200. While that is a lot it is only little for this game. (Will not deny that you get your money's worth out of it for the price but the game fails to achieve its potential if it is only after 200 hours of fun)
2. Currently I don not believe a new player would enjoy themselves --> lets take the example of crafting: To achieve all the blueprints a player needs to craft anywhere between 1-5 gold ships per blueprint (grey is possible but would possibly take a lot longer). Given that fine woods are required for gold ships this has destroyed the ability for new players to gain blueprints. So a new palyer won't become a crafter anymore unless he wants to grind out ships for a full year to acquire all blueprints. This will prevent new crafters to replace those that eventually leave (their number increases if you say veterans aren't supported any longer). This in turn will lead to people not being able to acquire good ships once they lose one. This will ahve them sit in the ports and evade PvP. Therefore they get bored and don't play at all eventually. So a new palyer not only doesn't have a good entry into anything but shooting but he also won't be able to sail good ships as soon as he loses one.
3. If you require more manpower for your team I am sure we will gladly help you. I have no objection whatsoever to a shop in which I can buy paints for my ships or other cosmetics. This would work like Elite Dangerous and they seem to fare quite well with it. The only thing I would stand against is premium ships as that will lead to pay to win.

[CatSwift]

8 minutes ago, admin said:

Its just before we were too often listening to too many people adding unnecessary ingredients (or unfinished ingredients) - and we won't make this mistake any more. 

From one game dev to another, I know this is a hard lesson to learn and I'm glad you've learned it.  You're not supposed to be creating the game everyone else wants, you're supposed to be creating the game YOU want and the one YOU believe will succeed.  Listen to player suggestions and advice absolutely, but you need to act only on the ones which actually fit into your vision for the game.

[Sir Texas Sir]

1 hour ago, Vernon Merrill said:

See, this is a perfect example of the division of the player base....  There was a thread a few months ago about "premium" and "special" ships/loot for small fees...   Half the people wanted it and half the people immediately went into their "I'm quitting the second it becomes Pay to Play"...  You could tell them until you're blue in the face that it would be stuff like skins/paints/small ships that are trophies, etc., but they would still lose their shit.  You can even see it in some of the comments above about the past "events".  Some people demand equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.  "If he got the Heavy Rattler BP, then goddammit, I deserve it too!!!"...  Its kinda crazy.

 

And in my opinion, the OW is the best part of this game...  once you get sick of pew pew, you realize that 75% of the battle is won or lost with the tag...  If having a lobby-based arena game was really the draw like some people say it is, then I think the evidence would point to the small/large battles tabs being far more popular.  And that is NOT the case.

 

My only thing is if it's paints and skins is that I should be able to get the exact same thing in game without paying for it with real money. If they do that than I'm ok with it.   Even if it means a point system you trade in for such things, but it should all be able to get in game too.   I don't think it should just be given to us, but worked for with missons and such.   

 

Before we get any skins and paints can we get at least clan flags first.  Every dang ship looks exactly the same in the OW and we need the flags to show there too not just in battles.  Though I would love clan flags so that we can tell two connies in a battle on the same team from each other cause half the time you can't tell the names cause your to close.  Which they can fix that by having a better in battle zoom out when your in broadside fire mode.

 

Oh and hell no to arena battles.  They have small battles for that and if they start to do that with events than they will loose me as a customer. I don't want to be playing CoD at sea. If I do than I'll go play WoT/WoWs or something.

[Archaos]

I know this is a bit off topic but it was raised in some earlier posts about whether the game should be F2P or not, and all I can say is please do not make it F2P, because if you think the issue with alt accounts is bad now imagine it with F2P, it will be unplayable and require a huge amount of people manning the tribunals and identifying whether players are alts and have broken the game rules.

[Bubba Smith]

On 11/28/2016 at 4:18 AM, Hethwill said:

Reviews ?

I see very little proper reviews on steam, especially on the negative side of the fence. There's a few very objective and proto-professional ones but the majority is whining against change.

Some changes are good, others are bad. If we look to regional resources, it was a community request. If you look to removal of flags and implementation of hostility, it was a community request. Same with RoE and same with raking, crafting ( especially the push for rare SOLs ) etc.

So how dare we, regular forumites, testers, and good folk that suggest a lot of things, to say that our own ideas are not good ?! Damn GL, stop listening to us !!!  /sarcasm off

I know for sure that 1st implementations are never a final scenario, as any NA player tester worth their salt should know by now.

By all the fish of the sea, we didn't have a Map once. And there was a time when no more than 60 people would play in the OW and that was once per week.

And guess what ? Game is awesome today as it was during the first and second iterations of OW.

Look at all the headway we made. Be honest. The majority of negative reviews are simply untrue and review mechanics that no longer exist. They insist on living in the past.

I would even say that if someone has something negative to say at least make constructive positive feed back. And YES, there has been lots of big steps forward and few very small ones back. I think the future for NA looks good because there are those trying hard to help and make it a better game on both sides. 

[Magnum]

1 hour ago, admin said:

please remember that this topic only covers one subject: A captain who played 1000+ hours, leaves a negative review and still plays and participates in development discussions. Because they are here on forum and are passionate about the game there are better ways to influence and improve the game. 

Overall the game has great positive reviews and has higher rating than no mans sky, or football manager or Skyrim special edition. If you like the game already - no need to be sad or unhappy. It will be finished and will be beautiful. Its just before we were too often listening to too many people adding unnecessary ingredients (or unfinished ingredients) - and we won't make this mistake any more. 

Damn, and here I thought it was about an arrogant, hubristic bully leaving snide and demeaning comments on negative reviews he had collated. Things like

Quote

" You know what 600 hours in game is? That is fifteen 40 hour work weeks of straight Naval Action, that's probably longer than most of you have ever survived in a job before getting fired. "

and

Quote

You know what is so telling about the sheer idiocy of these little punks?

My issue is the uneven moderation on these forums = I get heavily moderated when I just use the WORD "Russian" and NW gets zero moderation when he bullies at least 18 other players - WTF?

-----

I will leave my review as it is until my issue is addressed - deal with it.

BTW - why don't you address the issues raised in each of the 18 bad reviews NW quoted ---- 1 by 1 ---- 1 on 1?

Edited December 2, 2016 by Magnum

[TommyShelby]

Come on Magnum. You know very well your post wasn't moderated because you used the word Russian. 

It was moderated because you were heavily implying "Russian Bias". Some of the points you used i listed below.
- RUS have full L'Ocean Stronk Hull Fleet. 
- RUBLI have Santa Cecilia. 

I pointed out that the British had the L'Ocean before anyone else, and you also can get Stronk Hull L'Oceans if you want it... 
I also pointed out that RUBLI got some Santa Cecilias from the tournament + the Santa Cecilia was given to alot of testers. And some people got the Santa Cecilia from Fellvred's "Small Battle Challenge" thingy. 

Instead of just admitting to the fact that you were implying russian bias and that you were wrong. 
(Yes, wrong. If RUS and RUBLI having those ships is Russian Bias. Then there is "British Bias" too because the Brits got L'Ocean BP before all other nations.).
You just kept going and going even though what, 5 people or so, had explained to you that there was no Russian Bias. At the very least not on the points you pointed out as Russian Bias. 
Sure, you didn't use the exact phrasing: "Russian Bias".  But you made several snarky comments that implied that there was Russian Bias. 

If you are too stubborn to admit that you are wrong and apologize then perhaps you shouldn't have a "Tester" status. I've had to apologize to the Devs once or twice. I've had to admit that i was wrong about some thing they implemented which i thought would be bad for the game, but turned out to be good for the game.
There is nothing wrong with that and i would think that you would know that. 
 

Oh, and spreading false information about why you were "moderated" and stripped of your "Tester" status certainly doesn't help you.
While we have/had our differences i know you to be, in general, a nice guy that i respect. It makes you look silly and immature when you act like you have been doing since losing your "Tester" status. 

[Lord Vicious]

4 hours ago, Hethwill said:

So...

... eye candy is more positive than a solid wargame built over a age of sail sandbox openworld game !?

Am I Reading this correctly ?

 

As expected from you,  You joined the biased side, and now spend your time defending what cant be defended.  You never stop to amaze me.

Problem with skins is that they got introduced (very cool), they got distributed in a very stupid way, and then vanished.    A good thing we all like, gave in the worst way possible and then not even that.

 

Same i can talk with your clan Bp of ocean, or how ppl obtained agamennon bp wich are clearly an unfair advantage in the current pb system,   they got it, and now nobody since MONTHS can obtain it.   And instead istantly fix what is a game balance breaking thing, is left there to rotten and piss off community for months.   (like now warsupply)

 

I really dont get how you not get it. But thats probably why you are in your position

Edited December 2, 2016 by Lord Vicious

[Magnum]

55 minutes ago, Hodo said:

I don't understand how hard is it to spell STRONG correctly.   It isn't STRONK, that isn't the word you are looking for. 

And you are absolutely right about why his post were moderated.  While I have no love for the Russian Government I try REAL hard not to let that overflow into my feelings about Russian people in general.   And into my posts or interactions with the Russians in game.  Outside of calling the Dane alliance the Red Scourge, or the Iron Curtain.    

You are as usual "wrong". I did use the tag [RUS] and [RUBLI] because that's who I SAW had an unfair advantage in gear - I didn't say anything about anything Russian except I saw them with gear I couldn't get ------- just the facts ma'am.

If facts bother you - you are beyond any help this forum or any other can help with. If you must read "Russian bias" into the very use of the word Russian while describing FACTS that involve "RUSSIAN United Sailors" and "Whatever RUBLI" stands for you are in fact hopelessly PC.

I spoke FACTS - and chiding me about a typo a second grader could ferret out shows off your nature more than it does my typing prowess.

And dredging up an old Tommy Shelby rant from another thread is cheap theatrics = doesn't make you right, and doesn't include my answer to Tommy so it is unfair by nature. Again showing your nature ......

-----

My issue was uneven chances for acquiring the good gear - they (the R clans) were just an example I gave of how an uneven chance for the good gear biased game play.

-----

If only SOME of the people who pay their hard earned cash for this game have a chance to get the winning gear - the game is dead game walking.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Magnum

[jodgi]

4 hours ago, Snoopy said:

This may sound silly, but the same happened in this forum a few weeks ago. I will point out the Santisima vs Ocean+regional bonus debate. The actual reason why people lost was because they sailed crap but self image made that reality impossible to contemplate so a straw man had to be punished. Ocean is the 'Wunderwaffe' of the Seven Seas when in reality it's only marginally better than the Santi (if at all).

^

[Powderhorn]

25 minutes ago, Magnum said:

My issue was uneven chances for acquiring the good gear - they (the R clans) were just an example I gave of how an uneven chance for the good gear biased game play.

-----

If only SOME of the people who pay their hard earned cash for this game have a chance to get the winning gear - the game is dead game walking.

 

On 11/14/2016 at 11:15 AM, admin said:

• . 

Global events 

• PVE challenge. New lobby event focused exclusively on killing NPC ships. Players will have limited time to sink as many opponents as they can (on a pre-selected ship). Event will run weeky (or for several days) depending on the testing results. Top 10 players will be rewarded by ship redeemables, upgrades, rare materials and paint customizations. Ship which can be used in events will change every event. 
• PVP challenge. Open world map events focused exclusively on sinking players. A special area will be designated for PVP events and will run 3 times per day for Far East, EU and US prime times for several hours. Kills (victories) will be counted for players fighting in that zone. Players who gain leaderboard positions in their respective time zones will be rewarded by ship redeemables, upgrades, rare materials and /or paint customizations. Proposed initial locations for pvp challenge: shallow - Bahamas sand bank above Cuba (2 free towns north and south), deep water - hispaniola channel (3 free towns north south and west).

 

 

[Angus McGregor]

54 minutes ago, Magnum said:

You are as usual "wrong". I did use the tag [RUS] and [RUBLI] because that's who I SAW had an unfair advantage in gear - I didn't say anything about anything Russian except I saw them with gear I couldn't get ------- just the facts ma'am.

If facts bother you - you are beyond any help this forum or any other can help with. If you must read "Russian bias" into the very use of the word Russian while describing FACTS that involve "RUSSIAN United Sailors" and "Whatever RUBLI" stands for you are in fact hopelessly PC.

Enough is enough. You really aren't doing yourself any favors by continuing to deny accusing the devs of systematically giving Russian players an unfair advantage. I can pinpoint for you the exact post that you wrote where it seems crystal clear. Either your intent in it is exactly as it sounds, or you really suck at expressing yourself. Either way, an apology for what you wrote, or that you wrote it in a way that was so easily misunderstood would go a long way.

From: Forthcoming shipbuilding changes [Heavily Moderated]

On 11/4/2016 at 7:05 PM, Magnum said:

My FEEDBACK:

Well, between

- the Russian Pirates [RUBLI] getting "special" ships (Santa Cecilia).

- the Russian Danes [RUS] getting "Special" ships (Strong Hull L'Ocean).

- and the removal of any usefulness of screening fleets because the dev's allowing "Log in to port battle" mechanics by Russian [RUS] attackers.

You might as well wipe me RIGHT NOW - I am done testing the "Russians [RUBLI] [RUS] Win" game.

Good day.

You don't think that's an outright accusation of Russian bias?? Let me play that last bit for you again...

"I am done testing the "Russians [RUBLI] [RUS] Win" game."

 

[Magnum]

Hahahah

My perfectly sensible response gets cut and your horseshit response stays - perfect.

and you wonder why the bad review where you can't censor (steam).

[Angus McGregor]

4 minutes ago, Magnum said:

Hahahah

My perfectly sensible response gets cut and your horseshit response stays - perfect.

and you wonder why the bad review where you can't censor (steam).

No - your response is right where you left it... a different thread where my original post somehow ended up in spite of me trying fairly hard to get this multi-quote thing to work properly. Probably my fault though.

There Magnum - that's what an apology looks like when something may be at least be partly your fault.

[Magnum]

21 minutes ago, Angus McGregor said:

Enough is enough. You really aren't doing yourself any favors by continuing to deny accusing the devs of systematically giving Russian players an unfair advantage. I can pinpoint for you the exact post that you wrote where it seems crystal clear. Either your intent in it is exactly as it sounds, or you really suck at expressing yourself. Either way, an apology for what you wrote, or that you wrote it in a way that was so easily misunderstood would go a long way.

From: Forthcoming shipbuilding changes [Heavily Moderated]

You don't think that's an outright accusation of Russian bias?? Let me play that last bit for you again...

"I am done testing the "Russians [RUBLI] [RUS] Win" game."

 

Let me clarify for you since you insist on misreading what I wrote (therefore I must have miswrote it).

Changing 1 word only:

---

My FEEDBACK:

Well, between

- the This Clan Pirates [RUBLI] getting "special" ships (Santa Cecilia).

- the This Clan Danes [RUS] getting "Special" ships (Strong Hull L'Ocean).

- and the removal of any usefulness of screening fleets because the dev's allowing "Log in to port battle" mechanics by This Clan [RUS] attackers.

You might as well wipe me RIGHT NOW - I am done testing the "These Clans [RUBLI] [RUS] Win" game.

Good day.

---

Of course if the Mod who keeps censoring me steps in - you will never read this .....

[PongoNW]

1 minute ago, Magnum said:

Let me clarify for you since you insist on misreading what I wrote (therefore I must have miswrote it).

Changing 1 word only:

---

My FEEDBACK:

Well, between

- the This Clan Pirates [RUBLI] getting "special" ships (Santa Cecilia).

- the This Clan Danes [RUS] getting "Special" ships (Strong Hull L'Ocean).

- and the removal of any usefulness of screening fleets because the dev's allowing "Log in to port battle" mechanics by This Clan [RUS] attackers.

You might as well wipe me RIGHT NOW - I am done testing the "These Clans [RUBLI] [RUS] Win" game.

Good day.

---

Of course if the Mod who keeps censoring me steps in - you will never read this .....

Very interesting....

[Powderhorn]

This thread has gotten far, far off topic, has exhausted any usefulness it might have had, and is resulting in the further Balkinization of what should be a unified community.  This thread is closed.