Server Health is a Game Design Issue

[Fastidius]

18 minutes ago, Duncan McFail said:

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here but it sounds like making the the game more noob friendly. First and biggest solution is a small tutorial. I know you hate that idea, but a few of the reviews had people bagging on the game cause they didn't know how to get out of irons. If you want to throw back in the starter zone in the Bahamas go for it. You can have instanced missions. Maybe xp bonus for open world battles to encourage leaving port though. Maybe some random prizes for the first few levels and a notification that you even leveled.

For RvR we're still in the same boat from pre-wipe. No one wants to go around looking for enemy fleets to kill over and over. There's a lot of cool stuff that could be done with clan controlled territories and unity 5 allowing bigger battles. Let's go back to instant gratification of immediate action. First let's introduce clan conquest points that are used to upgrade security of clan ports, purchasing war supplies, and to buy conquest flags. First step to a pb is forming up the war party and purchasing a flag(need at least 10 guys from war clan to be in that port). The flag is not an item it just gives a server wide notice what port you're attacking. Attackers will also have to purchase and carry war supplies from their port after flag is bought. The defenders also need to purchase war supplies after the flag was bought, but they can't purchase it from the contested port. These war supplies weigh 100 each, cannot be carried in fleet, and have a 3 hour expiration on them. Once the group gets to the port they start the blockade phase by joining in like it was current pb with a bigger circle. This creates an instance around the port in that area. There is no entering or leaving that area without entering into the instance. Attackers have a few spots near the land to drop war supplies and also try to stop the defenders from making it into port with war supplies. It takes 2 minutes per war supply to ferry them to the land/port. There are trader AI that will spawn in around the edge of the instance carrying some war supplies. You get 1 point per war supply. If attackers have less than 200 at the 2 hour mark conquest is ended. If defenders make it to 500 anytime before the 2 hour mark conquest is ended. If attackers are at 200 by the end of the 2 hour mark then forts/towers become vulnerable and it moves onto port battle.

Port battle would be pretty straight forward. Attacker needs to destroy forts/ships, move in close to the port, and bombard town till it falls. Maybe choose to take the port or loot/raze it. You can even put a timer on that of a regular battle. No senseless kiting or holding zones. Hoping with unity 5 you could have more people in. Maybe other nations could show up to crash the party. Maybe have some cool bidding on players warehouses in the port you took. It would only show quantity of different stack or number of ships. Kinda storage wars style. As far as multiple war companies hitting another war companies ports at the same time I kinda like the suggestion someone made about having buffed AI's for defense. We would need the pb time windows back also. Then get those super AI at times outside that window or when your war clan initiated an attack first.

This port battle/hostility system seems better in so many ways.

• Instant gratification
• Variety of ships needed
• Large group effort
• Lotsa fightin
• Although long at up to 3.5 hours less time than travelling to grind AI then going back for pb
• Plenty of response time compared to old flag system

Maybe just cut down the permit prices a bit, increase rigging parts/blocks/provisions output, cut cannon mats/labor in half, and increase repair/rum output greatly. Crafted ships need a big gap over store bought and definitely over capped. 

I dislike having to travel all over the map to get resources to make the perm mods. Having only 1 or 2 locations that spawn them is harsh. That's days of fighting bidding wars to maybe be able to get enough for 2 mods. I can't even imagine it for the less dedicated. The wood types are another pain, but at least less of a pain on global at least.

This is a comment that I fear will bring very extreme and unwanted changes. The biggest problems I saw on the steam reviews was the huge grind. I play this game a lot and grinding missions is a big turnoff that I have to force myself to do. I took the days of having all slots unlocked for granted. Not having slots unlocked hurts being competitive. All these rare find books hurts being competitive. I thought the days of a mod being more expensive than a ship were gone. Things like not being able to send ships to port, no tp to free towns, and no deliveries between free ports have done their job and gotten players on the OW. Counter-tagging is still a problem. Super speed needs to only be on the defender. New tag circle is great. 

@admin you guys are doing a great job. The game is coming a long well and I'm sure you'll hit a good balance soon enough.

duncan is correct i think on most if not all of it...i'd like to see a dev version similar to this...maybe with a 2.5 hour version of PBs purely because of the timezone restrictions given to where downtime ins on global but if you would move donwtime on global to the same time as EU actually has PBs i might be better for that server.

 

I too would like to express the issue of moving away from PVP.....the issue is not that there is too little PVEcontent its that it what people think is the content.....back when flags were pulled people would scout and engage to stop the PB effectively training themselve to get INTO combat  and that created contetn...having the OW fleets was a way fro traders to move with a group up the coast and then sprint into a port to not get tagged in.   the problem of spawn camping was allegedly a BR issue but really you just needed the forts and fleets to patrol the area around a port....

 

training people that PVP is a part of the game and you use OW pve fleets to grind XP and to avoid being tagged is the way forward.... even now i hide in PVE fleets to get some places safely.

The idea of the Fleet missions was a good one BUT the mechanic should actually be put in place on a tagged in fleet.....for instance you put an avatar for a fleet sailing around as a first rate fleet...or a 3rd rate fleet etc.....if it is engaged by combat it scales to the group size attacking it the same way....IN ow if it is being used as an escort fleet then set it at say a minimum of 5 ships....IE a decent sized escort for a trader....

this is the content you want to make...the hunt is the fun but you cant make it one sided which is why the french get abused for trader ganks ..

 

you can make mission queues and say that if someone does a trader mission there is a corresponding Intercept mission also in ports along that trade route or something....no idea what range you would put on it but you could do that as all the data is server side....

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Fastidius

[Fastidius]

In regards to noob friendly.  Your main issue is that when they start the game they don't expect to spend 3 hours on youtube trying to find a guide...especially since you changed a heap of things and it may not all be relevant....combat is but the port missions are not necessarily intuitive.   If you had even a few emails in their mailbox on creating explaining the first few steps would be a good thing.  

Making the bottom missions spawn in the safe zone would be good also.....the kiddie pool and making them actually safe so they can learn to sail and sink etc...and make them basic cutters against them again and 2 basic cutters....the brigs in the low-end missions were and if they are still there horrible to have a basic cutter noob against.  they dont understand they need to get up close to pen and that they should be raking not broadside to broadside.....if there's no video explaining it. they won't find out easily and will quit.

you should also make some form of a clan application thing IN GAME....just a list of clans with online players max for the week or something so that theres no way to false advertise you sizing.  and make it clear that people should be in a clan to experience RVR Clan wars or whatever were doing .....  i am assuming that free traders are clanless and immune to the clan wars blocks etc...  i don't know your plan but yes those simple basics

 

maybe a Youtube channel that you ask someone like Jeheil or the english speaking EU youtubers can upload for you in a playlist which you put in the mail telling them this is the guide you want to look at for your first 5 hours of pay.....

 

I think basically you need to get a guy out of a local games shop to look at the game with a dev watching for 3 or 4 hours and see what a headache they have without being told WTF is going on in global/help.....these channels are not necessarily the best ways to get instant guidance.  especially when your in a battle and can't figure anything out.

[Guest]

My first day of Naval action consisted of me getting sunk against an NPC around Mortimer Town and for some reason spawning in the gulf of mexico on the opposite side of the map. I then spent the entire day (8 hours or so) traveling with a basic cutter from Mexico back to MT. This was my newbie experience. It was hardcore as hello kitty but anyone else would've quit (in fact I refunded naval action after 1.5 hours then bought it again to give a second try).

The newbie experience is rough. Players join who want to trade, or fight or build things. There is no newbie friendly way to learn any of this. Compare it to EVE where at the very least you can get courier missions, pve missions and even crafting missions. These are simple ways to give newbies a good start.

All this is moot however if a newb doesn't join a clan the chance they stick with the game drops drastically. Clans have to get connected with newbs quickly and easily (perhaps a newbie tag/highlight the names of newbs in nation chat.).

Edited August 15, 2017 by Guest

[Lord Vicious]

22 hours ago, admin said:

You can support Legends then Jon Snow.
It will have amazing core, no ganking, somewhat balanced battles, tournaments and NO time wasting whatsoever.
And it will be free to play on PC and will also launch on Xbox and PS4. Which means it will be full with life.

Legends will also let us remove those who want all that mentioned above from the hardcore sandbox. Making OW game better as a result. 

So you failed with na, and now  ask to have faith in you with another "shiny and promising" game?  that will have all we wanted (dunno the others but i not believe in santa anymore)    many of us offered you help since 2+ years, (even for free)  telling you not to make radical changes but to do incremental or decremental tweak.  You never listen, even when  community was clearly giving you a signal,  you say we all wrong and keep going your own way.   see where that way  have bring us?.. nowhere..

 

did you read what you write?      You always have an excuse,  oh eve have subscripion,  if ppl had 3k hours here with subscription we could have etc. you always talk about others as excuse for your failures.    (you also realize majority of that hours are afk, or sailing afk, it have nothing related to the quality of the game or the fun?  yet keep use it as advertizing,  i have 9k hours for example  a good 60% of that in my alt accounts, you thin i got even 1h of fun in my 6k hours on alts crafting and hauling? i tell you, not even 1h of that 6k was fun it was a necessity for run a big clan)

 

So do subscription, i think many would have buyd it if that guaranteed game development,  or a shop system :  why you made  skins? if there was no in game shop? we ask for clan logos, flags, colored sails etc since 2 year   we  pretty much TOLD you, we gonna buy that kind of stuff and you didnt do.

 

For not talk about fact you planned to do na2 or how you call it now,   since last summer, that clearly show your intention to put na aside  thats why you changed over and over same features pretty much, but no real changes happened.

 

 

Also i dont see how you can say you served the pvpers,   tower, forts, npc patrol,   roe, 1 dur ships all of this KILLED pvp,   and helped more the casuals.  in this last patch we got 1/10 of other patch pvp/pb.  I think you can check numbers by yourself.   but i remember having even 10pb in 1 day  in april 2016,     In this last incarnation i got 2  in a month.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Lord Vicious

[Hodo]

7 minutes ago, Lord Vicious said:

So you failed with na, and now  ask to have faith in you with another "shiny and promising" game?  that will have all we wanted (dunno the others but i not believe in santa anymore)    many of us offered you help since 2+ years, (even for free)  telling you not to make radical changes but to do incremental or decremental tweak.  You never listen, even when  community was clearly giving you a signal,  you say we all wrong and keep going your own way.   see where that way  have bring us?.. nowhere..

 

did you read what you write?      You always have an excuse,  oh eve have subscripion,  if ppl had 3k hours here with subscription we could have etc. you always talk about others as excuse for your failures.    (you also realize majority of that hours are afk, or sailing afk, it have nothing related to the quality of the game or the fun?  yet keep use it as advertizing,  i have 9k hours for example  a good 60% of that in my alt accounts, you thin i got even 1h of fun in my 6k hours on alts crafting and hauling? i tell you, not even 1h of that 6k was fun it was a necessity for run a big clan)

 

So do subscription, i think many would have buyd it if that guaranteed game development,  or a shop system :  why you made  skins? if there was no in game shop? we ask for clan logos, flags, colored sails etc since 2 year   we  pretty much TOLD you, we gonna buy that kind of stuff and you didnt do.

 

For not talk about fact you planned to do na2 or how you call it now,   since last summer, that clearly show your intention to put na aside  thats why you changed over and over same features pretty much, but no real changes happened.

A bit harsh but no less true.  

 

Honestly I think if they had asked for subscriptions over a year ago, this game would have been dead over a year ago.  Being buy to play has kept it around as long as it has.   Sure there would be people playing but I am quite sure that it would have been about half as many as there are currently if not less depending on the price per month.   If you tried to match EVE you wouldnt even see 1/4 of what you have now.  

[vazco]

22 hours ago, admin said:

You don't mention (very interested in why) that EVE required you to pay 14 dollars per month for how many years? 

What stops you from doing the same then? Hire an experienced community manager, hire someone experienced who will help you in designing OW mechanics, fix issues and charge what people are willing to pay with a monthly fee model.

You created a great combat simulator. You have a problem with PR and with creating mechanics that are stable and hook people to stay for longer. Invest - hire someone to fix them, launch NA2 with a new payment model, and you can have large profits. Or simply stop developing the game, forget all the experience that you got so far, don't try to use a goldmine of data that you've got, and move to another project. It's your choice. 

 

Demand from yourself though, not others. Your ratings went down mostly due to a bad PR approach. Players leave game, as OW environment rules don't promote engaging interactions that would hook people to play for longer. You may be happy with your earnings, however it's not the goal of the community. Your crisis management needs to improve, otherwise you will have similar problems with Legends as well.

[Hodo]

4 minutes ago, vazco said:

What stops you from doing the same then? Hire an experienced community manager, hire someone experienced who will help you in designing OW mechanics, fix issues and charge what people are willing to pay with a monthly fee model.

You created a great combat simulator. You have a problem with PR and with creating mechanics that are stable and hook people to stay for longer. Invest - hire someone to fix them, launch NA2 with a new payment model, and you can have large profits. Or simply stop developing the game, forget all the experience that you got so far, don't try to use a goldmine of data that you've got, and move to another project. It's your choice. 

 

Demand from yourself though, not others. Your ratings went down mostly due to a bad PR approach. Players leave game, as OW environment rules don't promote engaging interactions that would hook people to play for longer. You may be happy with your earnings, however it's not the goal of the community. Your crisis management needs to improve, otherwise you will have similar problems with Legends as well.

As I stated above.. how many people do you HONESTLY think would stick around and pay 14USD a month for this?   

I can venture to say, less than a quarter.    So let us see... what 500 people online peak divided by 1/4..... 125 total during peak on all servers combined.

The only thing it would do is cut down on the number of alts.  

[Lord Vicious]

13 minutes ago, Hodo said:

A bit harsh but no less true.  

 

Honestly I think if they had asked for subscriptions over a year ago, this game would have been dead over a year ago.  Being buy to play has kept it around as long as it has.   Sure there would be people playing but I am quite sure that it would have been about half as many as there are currently if not less depending on the price per month.   If you tried to match EVE you wouldnt even see 1/4 of what you have now.  

 

Also regards eve i play it from 2003 to 2012 and i never spent 1 $,  i was rich in game and used plex that ppl where selling  (you could have use same method here) and nobody ever accused eve to be  p2w.

 

Player could buy plex for renew subscripton or sell them for in game money.  (so if you where rich you could sub not spending 1 $ )

[jodgi]

25 minutes ago, Lord Vicious said:

blabla

[Hodo]

3 minutes ago, Lord Vicious said:

 

Also regards eve i play it from 2003 to 2012 and i never spent 1 $,  i was rich in game and used plex that ppl where selling  (you could have use same method here) and nobody ever accused eve to be  p2w.

 

Player could buy plex for renew subscripton or sell them for in game money.  (so if you where rich you could sub not spending 1 $ )

Oh I know, I havent paid for a subscription to EVE in about 6 months.  Been working off of the PLEX bought off the market from my WH exploration.   I can make an easy billion a month if I just explore WHs a couple of hours a day.

[vazco]

1 minute ago, Hodo said:

As I stated above.. how many people do you HONESTLY think would stick around and pay 14USD a month for this?

Doesn't really matter as long as they pay more than what GL gets now. I'm willing to pay even 30 USD/month to have a polished products with no current issues. With current model, I know it's doomed to fail. It's most profitable if everyone buys the game, plays it once and doesn't come back. This model is not sustainable.

For people who don't want to pay, there can be other options available - eg. in Eve you can play without paying as long as you're active.

[Hodo]

Just now, vazco said:

Doesn't really matter as long as they pay more than what GL gets now. I'm willing to pay even 30 USD/month to have a polished products with no current issues. With current model, I know it's doomed to fail. It's most profitable if everyone buys the game, plays it once and doesn't come back. This model is not sustainable.

For people who don't want to pay, there can be other options available - eg. in Eve you can play without paying as long as you're active.

You maybe.. but how many people do you know are willing to do the same?

And again in EVE, that only works because they have a viable working economy.   Here we have no such thing.

[vazco]

It works in Eve (and in many other game-like products), which means it can be done. In another model it works for Paradox Interactive.

Don't misunderstand me - it wouldn't work if right now devs would introduce monthly payment straight away. Game has a huge potential to work this way though, after a few changes. Seeing it die out instead is disappointing.

Edited August 15, 2017 by vazco

[Nelsons Barrel]

You can't simply change the monetizing way of a game that was greenlighted and is accessable through stream probably. But yeah, would have been the better choice from the beginning. I would have paid 5$ per months without hesitation.

[admin]

2 hours ago, Lord Vicious said:

So you failed with na, and now  ask to have faith in you with another "shiny and promising" game?  

did you read what you write?      You always have an excuse,  oh eve have subscripion,  

Shiny promising game? Asked to have faith? this section is in the NA forum. Can you link me where exactly we asked anyone to put faith into any OTHER of our games in this topic?

And regarding eve we only mentioned it because some players started saying - why don't you make as much content as EVE. We don't need excuses - we know that the result is amazing for a small team like ours. 

 

[admin]

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

You maybe.. but how many people do you know are willing to do the same?

And again in EVE, that only works because they have a viable working economy.   Here we have no such thing.

EVE was launched in 2003 and plex was introduced in 2008. Before that they had GTC (since 06) AND subs so people who are not interested in getting ahead by game means could always just buy money. So they had 5 years to build a viable working economy using game sales price - subs and GTC. Which is again relates to the point. We have signed up to entertain people for 40 dollars worth - we have amazing potential content for 40 bucks but once you get bored of it.. maybe thats it?

 

[admin]

But again.. i will use @Tenet phrase and say one thing. As it seemed the topic moved on from what we want to address. 

Perhaps its time community lift their ass from the chairs if they want NA to continue to be developed. As we see a strange mechanic.
People who ARE SUPPOSEDLY interested in the game stay silent - while some really upset people run around and TAKE time shitting in positive reviews
like this:

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198251680420/recommended/311310/
0 of users found it helpful.. you know why? because haters actually spend time and down vote positive reviews. 
Sometimes they takedown positive reviews as breaking community standards. 
Yet 67% of players still like it. The negative voice is overwhelming just because it is louder.

Where is our community here?

Its a two way street. We want to see community do something about it. Otherwise this is not a community - its just consumers vs a seller. relationship and we should change our ways accordingly. bringing real fans closer but sending all consumers to steam to read news and announcements and occasional mod messages. 

[Dharus]

Going back to what @Slamz was saying.  A step back and relook at the game mechanics and design goals would be good @admin.

A lot of people are suggesting new features or additional layers which could work.  However, personally, I think it wouldn't require a lot of time and energy or crazy new features.  Change Pbs to being some pull flag, raid port through PB, get reward system and maybe add a join AI ship from port button for defenders.  Then RvR can be based on player conflict on the OW using the existing contention system with some tweeks (like passive contention mechanic while patrolling a region).  It is much easier to dictate battles on the OW so underpopulated nations with good captains can hold their own.  Pbs with 25vs25 specialized ships isn't as accessible.  Map contention (and combatnews) is the easiest way to identify player hotspots and OW PvP feeds right into these features.

Right now NA is the best age of sail battle experience.  What it lacks is a better OW conflict design.

[admin]

2 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

 

What bores us is not the lack of interesting things to do but the repetitive grind to get there (like the fiasco of the AI fleet to flip a port). On PvPGlobal the French have shown that owning ports is not even the end game as we can live without it and there is no real incentive to defend them.

 

 

thats getting fixed

[Lord Vicious]

1 hour ago, admin said:

Shiny promising game? Asked to have faith? this section is in the NA forum. Can you link me where exactly we asked anyone to put faith into any OTHER of our games in this topic?

And regarding eve we only mentioned it because some players started saying - why don't you make as much content as EVE. We don't need excuses - we know that the result is amazing for a small team like ours. 

 

Is the business model that not work, expecial if you a small team, na is a big project wich require  continous support,   why do skins if you never intended to sell them?    i think 90% of players whould have enjoy a shop in game, with flags, skins, sails, customization etc.   Wich would have guaranteed you an income for augment your staff.

Eve started with 4 people too.. 

 

You not asking faith but you promise a better game already, while you leaving this to die,  dunno who instruct you about marketing and comunications, but is a very bad signal, you leaving a product unfinished to die, while already working on another wich is a direct competitor to your own title, it not require a genious for understand where this is going.

 What that say? that you have no intentions anymore to develop na, but tbh this is a thing ppl like me understood since last summer. , since game barely grow, it was just a continuous shift of "numbers" of current existing features.    

Is sad becouse community and old supportes give you tons of suggestions and hits but where always ignored,  the "secret" test forum area got hundreds of threads since 2+ year and almost nothing from that forum was ever develop or even receive an answer, is a dead section since a year+

 

I told you noob zone would have been a mistake you threat me like a fool, we gonna do it, anyway  where is noob zone now?, community told you not to do 1 dur on everything, you asked feedback community answer, you said : you all wrong we gonna do it anyway.

And i can make a thread long 10 pages of i told you so. (and with me any others) so you think we did that becouse we hate you and the game or becouse we wanted to help ?   But i am not a funboy i cant support blindly a game where devs constantly for 2 years, changed 10 times same mechanics and didnt fix core problems. Expecial when most experienced players suggested you the solutions and you costantly ignored them.

I bet soon or later you gonna try pb with br instead slots,  as me and other suggested since 2+ year for avoid the mono aga or mono ocean fleets.  But probably i will not even be here anymore for see it.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Lord Vicious

[Tenet]

29 minutes ago, admin said:

But again.. I will use @Tenet phrase and say one thing. As it seemed the topic moved on from what we want to address. 

Perhaps it's time community lift their ass from the chairs if they want NA to continue to be developed. As we see a strange mechanic. People who ARE SUPPOSEDLY interested in the game stay silent - while some really upset people run around and TAKE time shitting in positive reviews like this:

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198251680420/recommended/311310/

It's a two way street. Get something positive done today. 

I was in the middle of writing a reply to some of your points in this thread. There is still a great deal of Miscommunication - you say something like "things you suggest often make it into the game" which is 100% true but only 5% is communicated back to the players. If we as a community don't see you advertise our involvement in specific cases, if we don't read detailed explanations of the decisions that you make - showing your logic, so we are all on the same level of understanding, we don't feel as involved. 

Right now if I were to write a review I would have to avoid talking about all the things that make me hit my fist against my forehead each time I encounter them in game. You really want such a review, only listing the positives? No problem. I will "get off my ass" not only write you a positive review but recruit others to do the same for the good of the game.

I wanted to write in detail about some things you said, but I will have to make due with just short comments:

- Listening to your community is a Selling Point (!!!) You just need to improve how it's done - for example have an ELECTION on the forum where people can nominate themselves to an Advisor Council - people that can sift through ideas and proposals and compile a unified suggestions document that matches the design direction or the current experiment that the community wants to run. You need people that are accountable to the community and can be regularly replaced - but do some of the sorting and compiling and rewriting for you. You need to work with such people on outlining a plan where all the changes and improvements will fit into. 

- You need to start offering ways to support the project beyond Alts. For example, I would pay you right now $10 for a DLC that includes access to a Backer forum where the project is discussed in detail, where Elections are held for Advisor council, where people who no longer back the game can read but not write. 

- You need to  do something about the sailing times and map size, particularly: 

- I am -really- desperate for a notification system of Enemy Player Sails are In Sight. Half the problem isn't just the long sailing, but the requirement to stare at the screen, losing my eyesight trying to detect ships - where are my spotters?! With this system I can launch the game, pick a direction to raid, and do some work while the ship is sailing. Same with the enemy - he gets a notice once he spots my sails (only with sails up), and we start the OW PvP. 

- Less desperate but equally important is the ability to 10x Speed outside of Regions or in specific regions of the ocean far away from every town. This type of map-shrinking can be gradually reduced or removed once you're back to 2500 players, but it's desperately needed right now. 

- We need a council of players to go over the game an analyze all the fat - whether it's annoyances with ship building, materials, or UI "features" that no longer make sense -  it all could be greatly streamlined.

- We need the Money Sinks in the game to be Rent/Mortgage based not one-time-pay. Let people breath, let people rent dock space. You reduced durability from 5x to 1x yet our docks didn't expand. Do you realize how much forehead pain that one fact causes? 

You will have a glowing review of the best aspects of Naval Action later today. You should read it and notice the things that are omitted that could have been there. 

Yes, this is alpha and you can steer your boat tack to wear then tack again, it's your right, but I don't think you are getting accurate measurements out of your experiments or reaching the right conclusions. Your promise to cater to Average player instead of Hardcore in one of the latest posts is so vague and inaccurate it's almost guaranteed to frustrate as result. 

I feel like you are going to offer us changes that we didn't ask for, then point at that line and say "Here, I did what you asked for, why are you unhappy?". 

What we -really- need is a Controlled Scientific Factual discussion -before- you waste time coding. We need a forum where YOU open a topic and ONLY Elected Backers can respond, only factual discussion is allowed, and a specific goal has to be reached based on limited resources. No one person is right, but a group of experienced players will be able to reach a consensus you can actually refer to when you decide to how to act. 

 

p.s. Pardon @admin - it always comes out as a wall of text. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Tenet

[admin]

11 minutes ago, Lord Vicious said:

You not asking faith but you promise a better game already, while you leaving this to die,  dunno who instruct you about marketing and comunications, but is a very bad signal, you leaving a product unfinished to die, while already working on another wich is a direct competitor to your own title, it not require a genious for understand where this is going.

Legends will be a better game for those who hate current NA.
Those who love hunting/trading/crafting/sailing will not move there. 

Its a good signal. And timely. We will launch before skull and bones on consoles too. (hopefully). Its hard to unsee the proper tracking shot and they don't have it. There is no point to continue to shove ow travel into throats of players who don't want to travel and just want to combat. 

[admin]

6 minutes ago, Tenet said:

 

p.s. Pardon @admin - it always comes out as a wall of text. 

i am subbed to this topic for future reference ))

[Lord Vicious]

3 minutes ago, admin said:

Legends will be a better game for those who hate current NA.
Those who love hunting/trading/crafting/sailing will not move there. 

Its a good signal. And timely. We will launch before skull and bones on consoles too. (hopefully). Its hard to unsee the proper tracking shot and they don't have it. 
 

Split a 500 ppl community      into 2 very similar games.  how gonna end for NA. cmon  you think i am an idiot?   you think NA gonna sourvive with 200 ppl on and 300 playng legends?

You just wanna sell another game, na is not making anymore $ i got it, but dont threat us like idiots plz.      I agree combat is best part of Na, and rest is meh..   and probably legends will be a better product since it will benefit from years of polishing of na combat,  but that also mean the death of NA.  You now it as i do.

 

But you now maybe a world of warship, with age of sail ships, with a territorial warfare like world of tanks?   where you create clans,  do pb  with lobby etc will work better then NA open world.   with a shop, modules etc.       i thruely believe will be much easyer to apply to legends a warthunder like   marketing strategy/lobby.  Then develop a potbs like game.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Lord Vicious

[admin]

4 minutes ago, Lord Vicious said:

Split a 500 ppl community      into 2 very similar games.  how gonna end for NA. cmon  you think i am an idiot?   you think NA gonna sourvive with 200 ppl on and 300 playng legends?

 

Why we are talking about legends in this topic. All companies have products competing with each other from apple to mcdonalds. In this case propositions are drastically different. 
Vast caribbean open world with hunting for real humans
vs
Pure age of sail combat experience without any interference

also most f2p launches on steam got at least 100,000 users in the first week. We are sure a lot of them will trade up to NA.