Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Wipe patch to live servers slightly delayed.

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, The Red Duke said:
6 minutes ago, The Red Duke said:

You give the feedback where it is due. Not at every corner, at every step, at every opportunity and everytime you sit to type something.

There are some things you cannot change and by writing the same jackass mantra in every thread even if it is not even remotely related is pure spam and trolling, sorry.

That red post was simply to say - do not spam the entire forum with a  Message  that is already posted in the appropriate thread.

 

 

Well .... before accusing ME of spamming the same "jackass mantra" in every thread, you should have at least checked that I did not spam any mantra anywere (since I was not the player that posted the post that you answered with your red post).

So, if you want to be a moderator, behave like a moderator should: check WHO posted WHAT and, in general, try to AVOID RUDE and VULGAR words in answering the community.

Thanks for your understanding

Edited by victor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir, it is for everyone, including me. And damn me old smelly barnacle bottoms...

Thank you for behaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bach said:

Quite true. However it didn't peak because it had the perfect rules set. It peaked because it was new, fresh and popular.  When we had so many people last year we had to open additional servers most of those players were playing under rules the players today think were barbaric.   Everyone could get attacked anywhere by anyone, port battles could happen at any time of the day, there was battle screen ambushes, huge reinforcement timers, plenty of ganking and all kinds of stuff that if you mentioned doing today people would scream about. Yet we had so many we had to open another server. So in truth, the rule set probably doesn't really matter so much as being or appearing fresh and new. 

If we want more population I think this new release really just needs a good PR agent to sell it and probably not much else. Pirates of the Caribbean 5 comes out in a month.  If the timing is there and the word of this new Caribbean sailing game with an awesome combat system gets around the potential for many new players is definitely there.  

 

You are partially right but also wrong. Yes it did get some numbers because it was new and so many of us potbs players wanted a new potbs to play so yes numbers where high. 

Where I think your off is that those numbers stayed high because of the cold cruel world we where alowed to play in because of the rules or lack of. It wasnt untill the tear brigade started getting traction and ONE game change in particular that the population started dropping like flies in December.  

Its no longer worth debating or fighting about who was right or wrong because the gods of spoken but the massive number drops where right after certain new changes to help certain players ( who still quit like we called) and make them happy.

When my " test group " of 10 had a 100% quit rate over a couple changes that isnt a coincidence.  The real issue is that Simon and others see is that the NA we have now is some wierd manbearpig hybrid of two types of games that have players that DO NOT mix so it makes popularity a problem. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bach said:

Quite true. However it didn't peak because it had the perfect rules set. It peaked because it was new, fresh and popular.  When we had so many people last year we had to open additional servers most of those players were playing under rules the players today think were barbaric.   Everyone could get attacked anywhere by anyone, port battles could happen at any time of the day, there was battle screen ambushes, huge reinforcement timers, plenty of ganking and all kinds of stuff that if you mentioned doing today people would scream about. Yet we had so many we had to open another server. So in truth, the rule set probably doesn't really matter so much as being or appearing fresh and new.

I actually built a $$$ "gaming" desktop computer to play Naval Action, after watching the youtubes of big arranged battles ("trafalgars") a couple summers back.  I never had such a desktop machine before, since I had not done any "computer gaming" since Ultima V in the 1980's.  The youtubes featured fleets of a dozen or more fancy ships - lined up and spewing cannonballs until they started sinking one by one.  I ended up getting into some other games before the early access became available.  When the early access rolled around I found out this game was not the big battles I saw on the youtubes but instead the sparsely populated "open world", with a lot of time sailing around cursing the wind and waiting for traders with contraband, followed by a half hour battle to try to capture one little ship to get loot and progress to a larger ship. I did jump into one battle in progress that had about 5 player minnows mobbing a lone NPC.  I hardly fired a shot in that one because the other players were practically mounting the NPC boat in their lust - there was no clean line of fire.  It wasn't really what I expected, and certainly not what I had time for, so after some light experimenting I went back to other games I was already heavily involved in. 

Anyhow, my comment is that it was those youtubes of big battles that attracted me to this game...which is something I didn't actually find in the early access game itself.  I was thinking it would be a computer version of Age of Sail board games like Close Action or Flying Colors, centered around battles.  Essentially, World of Warships for the Age of Sail.  I imagine that the same kind of events that originally caught my interest would still attract new players (or old players), though not for long if it doesn't deliver what people came for.  The "open world" is OK in some ways, and sort of interesting in the rare event that I actually have more than the usual span of free time to sail distances, but it isn't what I actually came for and that's why I've rarely played. 

Edited by rownd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hodo said:

This was a problem but, but this game was never advertised as a World of Warships style arena game.  People just assumed like you did.  And assuming does one thing.

Sure.  I'm just commenting regarding the issue of attracting players.  I don't represent everyone, but I doubt I'm that unusual.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it bad that I kind of hope a good many dont come back?  This town needs some fresh blood and less "ZOMG if they put XXX into the game I'm leaving for good" BS...  

 

Just leave if you dont enjoy the damn game.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rownd said:

I actually built a $$$ "gaming" desktop computer to play Naval Action, after watching the youtubes of big arranged battles ("trafalgars") a couple summers back.  I never had such a desktop machine before, since I had not done any "computer gaming" since Ultima V in the 1980's.  The youtubes featured fleets of a dozen or more fancy ships - lined up and spewing cannonballs until they started sinking one by one.  I ended up getting into some other games before the early access became available.  When the early access rolled around I found out this game was not the big battles I saw on the youtubes but instead the sparsely populated "open world", with a lot of time sailing around cursing the wind and waiting for traders with contraband, followed by a half hour battle to try to capture one little ship to get loot and progress to a larger ship. I did jump into one battle in progress that had about 5 player minnows mobbing a lone NPC.  I hardly fired a shot in that one because the other players were practically mounting the NPC boat in their lust - there was no clean line of fire.  It wasn't really what I expected, and certainly not what I had time for, so after some light experimenting I went back to other games I was already heavily involved in. 

Anyhow, my comment is that it was those youtubes of big battles that attracted me to this game...which is something I didn't actually find in the early access game itself.  I was thinking it would be a computer version of Age of Sail board games like Close Action or Flying Colors, centered around battles.  Essentially, World of Warships for the Age of Sail.  I imagine that the same kind of events that originally caught my interest would still attract new players (or old players), though not for long if it doesn't deliver what people came for.  The "open world" is OK in some ways, and sort of interesting in the rare event that I actually have more than the usual span of free time to sail distances, but it isn't what I actually came for and that's why I've rarely played. 

The Devs have stated they are intending to make an arena game for those that like instant action.  

As far as Trafalgar in the OW, it is achievable and I have taken part in a few. But in a sand box that stuff is largely left up to the player to have to create.  Most fail by choosing peace and safety over war in a war game. My opinion is that certain rule sets implemented over the past year deterred players from generating their own Trafalgars.  Early on when populations were high 25v25 port battles were had.  Later as the population thinned and the alliance system combined with the teleport systems created super powers in PBs there were less Trafalgars.  I know it sounds strange. You would think teleports combined with alliances would result in frequent 25v25 PBs.  But it didn't.  Human nature, I'm guessing, turned the tables.  For players to aggressively RvR they have to think they can win. They have to see light at the end of tunnel.  When the three largest RvR nations ally with each other the really big RvR just dies off. For some reason they choose not to fight the opponents that are actually in their own weight class. Anyway, the devs are making a game for you that you can push a button and join a battle in 1st rate without all the logistics, planning and sailing.  No strategy needed. No chess match of wits between nations of admirals. Just unit tactics and button mashing as fast as you can.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sir Joseph Blaine said:

Is it bad that I kind of hope a good many dont come back?  This town needs some fresh blood and less "ZOMG if they put XXX into the game I'm leaving for good" BS...  

 

Just leave if you dont enjoy the damn game.  

I fear that the reasons that induced so many people to leave the game (or not to come back) are the same that could induce new players not to stay long if they come in. 

Edited by victor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, victor said:

I fear that the reasons that induced so many people to leave the game (or not to come back) are the same that could induce new players not to stay long if they come in. 

Yup.  The dev team decided to try and please two genres of gamers in the same game and never learned to comprises or a middle of the road plan and used one extreme or the other. 

Im hoping for someone to make NA 2 for the true sandbox players who have kept EVE going for a decade even with atari graphics and sound. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sir Joseph Blaine said:

Is it bad that I kind of hope a good many dont come back?  This town needs some fresh blood and less "ZOMG if they put XXX into the game I'm leaving for good" BS...  

 

Just leave if you dont enjoy the damn game.  

many did leave and now we have 50 people on testbed. The Future of this game is now in hands of Developers who still can't decide what they want. Next few months will be critical and will show if NA lives or Dies.

Edited by Ned Low
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mrdoomed said:

Yup.  The dev team decided to try and please two genres of gamers in the same game and never learned to comprises or a middle of the road plan and used one extreme or the other. 

Im hoping for someone to make NA 2 for the true sandbox players who have kept EVE going for a decade even with atari graphics and sound. 

You DID read where they are making a separate version of the game who want sea-trial like insta-battles, right?  Hence the reason they are focusing on the OW in the test bed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Hodo mentioned above. Let's keep it clean. It takes two to fight and your posts were coming on strong first.  I happen to agree with a lot of what your saying but a locked thread is useless.

 

~quoted content removed ~ moderation team

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bach said:

As Hodo mentioned above. Let's keep it clean. It takes two to fight and your posts were coming on strong first.  I happen to agree with a lot of what your saying but a locked thread is useless.

Its just frustrating and pisses me off that the exact same crowd who cried for change to ez mode back long ago are the EXACT same guys STILL crying its to hard or not fair. Then you look at the facts that when the game was built for bully monsters like me the pvp2 server had between 800-1200 a night and every single step the game took toward ez mode to pacify the weak the population died off.

NA built for mean mean me = 1000 population. 

NA built for the " average joe" = 40 players.

That is why I fight Bach. For that game that more people liked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think all that EZ mode stuff backfired.  As good as it may have sounded, in the end it just didn't work. But the good thing is the Devs seem to have figured that out.  We're going back to more hard core challenges and from what I have seen on the test bed I'm liking it.  

I think THE most important thing to a sand box is challenges that players cannot overcome playing solo.  The sandbox relies on player created content. Player created content generally relies on challenges players need to band together to overcome.  Teams, rivalries, trade markets and such all develope naturally when players have to do the problem solving themselves.  When players don't need to band together to solve problems they don't end up creating any content for each other.  Smuggler flags put every resource in every solo players hands, OW ROE made it safe to wander around solo in enemy waters. Making player coastal patrols useless and hunting party team mates unnecessary.  So no player to player content is created to over come challenges.  It becomes an narrow content Arena game but with a lot of sailing in between matches.  ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are slightly off topic, but I agree with that EZ mode can easily backfire and has. What players often say they want is not what they actually need for the game to be fun(just like your partner).

A small and obsolete example : Always rolling 3/5 ships might look good on the surface but in reality it removes randomness and volatility to the game which makes it more dynamic thus invoking an emotional response when it goes either way, contributing in a engaging way. If it is predictable; it is not a game(or minigame in this case).

If someone rolls 2/4 5 times in a row they might get frustrated and post a whine on the forum(I don't have time for this etc), when there are 50 such posts the developers are pushed to do something about it.

Obviously there are plenty of good suggestions from the players how to improve the game but it is up to the devs to filter what actually contributes to the gameplay and what is instant gratification and short term gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to help out, just join the testbed server, that's why the main wipe has been delayed, people keep finding more stuff to fix, and new features being trialled & tweaked.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/04/2017 at 9:07 PM, Hodo said:

Maybe in time for the Victory Day parade in RUSSIA!!!!

Ooops!!! I think the Devs are from Kiev in Ukraine are they not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lannes said:

Ooops!!! I think the Devs are from Kiev in Ukraine are they not?

Multi national maybe :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/04/2017 at 0:55 PM, victor said:

Well .... before accusing ME of spamming the same "jackass mantra" in every thread, you should have at least checked that I did not spam any mantra anywere (since I was not the player that posted the post that you answered with your red post).

So, if you want to be a moderator, behave like a moderator should: check WHO posted WHAT and, in general, try to AVOID RUDE and VULGAR words in answering the community.

Thanks for your understanding

The Red Duke was referring to the Simon Cadete post, not yours Victor. It was The Red Duke's mistake to put it under your post and not refer it properly.

Edited by Lannes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2017 at 11:00 AM, admin said:

Hello Captains. 

To avoid future ship wipes before the release we have to delay the patch for 1-2 weeks. We want to get one more ship change in before the wipe. 

(There might be some money and resource resets in case new loopholes are found). 

It's been one week, now. How is the WIPE timetable going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aventador said:

@admin Can you tell us the day that you are planning on releasing the patch next week?

I still think more hotfixes are coming to the testbed server.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, example: cannon craft need first " workshop" building

it cost 150K +1000 oak wood, 500 stone block(!!!!!) and+ irons ! so for only crafting guns is cost a WEEK time !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...