Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Pre-Release Server Status Information

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

subscriptions are so out dated, they would loose players for sure with that.   Honestly it's going to turn F2P eventually with them doing more DLC to buy I bet.  Just like POTBS went that route.

Not sure if you noticed by most F2P games have Subscriptions on  the side. Yes subscription-locked is outdated but subscriptions are usually fine, especially in economies where you can buy the subscription time through in-game currency.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly server need money to run at datacenter. It’s recurring cost. I understand and respect that: I’m 1 of those that wouldn’t mind paying the sub fees to maintain the services. Provided continued development is in place after launch. Dev need money to survive and get paid to put food on table. So do we all. 

So if the dev is watching this, I hope NA is not going to be an abandon project. Need money, put out a subscription model. But will be nice to leave the F2P option in there. Can try to learn from games like elder scrolls online, Eve & etc...

its not easy to find a good age of sail game that has the simulation and realistic factor in it. It’s the best out there now and this genre has its customer base.

will be a sad day to see project is drop since efforts has already being put in to make it here so far.

yes this game is far from finish but it’s unfair to ask the dev to work for free to continue developing this game. Yes we paid $50 for the games but given it’s based now. It’s easy to work on the sum that how much the dev is getting.

assuming 3000 copies. That’s only generate a $150k. Taking away the cost to run the server and percentage that steam took away, this really is very little money. 

No 1 in this world will want to work on a project that doesn’t get paid. 

All I ask for. Is continued development from the dev. I can’t speak for anybody other than myself. Some will gladly pay the sub, some won’t. But I believe this can serve the balance of both willing to pay and not willing to pay customer. 

Dev can learn from the business mode of other studio. 

Eve online has a bigger base but not all is paying. But the studio has been going on for so long and still maintaining the game. They have paid and free customer base. They are surviving. 

I like this game and until another that come in close to NA, I will hate to see this genre and game dies off. 

 

 

Edited by PhilipAce
Typo edit
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, admin said:

Not pushing unfinished under cooked features into the live game is not evil.

The community should take this as an incentive to work out the ideas in detail on the forums... 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

subscriptions are so out dated, they would loose players for sure with that.   Honestly it's going to turn F2P eventually with them doing more DLC to buy I bet.  Just like POTBS went that route.

Didnt POBS go Kaput? or close to it? not a good sign here for NA, Not sure i would pay to keep servers up with 300 on line.

Share this post


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

The community should take this as an incentive to work out the ideas in detail on the forums... 😉

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

 

:)

Edited by RyebreadMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Severus Snape said:

You mean the first port battle when 1 nation has PB Bonus ships and the other is in redeemable Ratts only filling half the BR?

No, he means the last battle where both nations have fully upgraded ships - you know, the one before port of one of those nations is taken, leading to an unbreakable hegemony of the second one. 

 

To be completely fair though, I heard devs are planning to address this as well. Let's see and wait :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vazco said:

No, he means the last battle where both nations have fully upgraded ships - you know, the one before port of one of those nations is taken, leading to an unbreakable hegemony of the second one. 

 

To be completely fair though, I heard devs are planning to address this as well. Let's see and wait :)

Imho periodic map wipes would do marvels to the game

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Archipel said:

Imho periodic map wipes would do marvels to the game

I can see many pros to what you say.  The major con for me though, is the enormous amount of investment that goes into making a "crafting" base now.  A periodic map wipe would destroy all of that. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I can see many pros to what you say.  The major con for me though, is the enormous amount of investment that goes into making a "crafting" base now.  A periodic map wipe would destroy all of that. 

Exactly. That would put clans to work again and again generating content.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Angus MacDuff said:

I can see many pros to what you say.  The major con for me though, is the enormous amount of investment that goes into making a "crafting" base now.  A periodic map wipe would destroy all of that. 

argh, correct.  I don't know what the answer is to nations getting wiped.  Would be nice to have some mechanic in place that would help them get back on their feet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Archipel said:

Exactly. That would put clans to work again and again generating content.

When it gets to be that much work, it can be more than many are willing to tolerate.  It's not just large clans that do this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RyebreadMike said:

argh, correct.  I don't know what the answer is to nations getting wiped.  Would be nice to have some mechanic in place that would help them get back on their feet.

You mean some sort of redeemable?  Map gets wiped but every clan that had major bases gets replacement resources?

Share this post


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

You mean some sort of redeemable?  Map gets wiped but every clan that had major bases gets replacement resources?

No, I was actually thinking of some sort of dynamic setting in the game that makes it harder and harder to wipe out a nation ... :) should be easy right? lol

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok .. really no thought into this just throwing it out there so flail away :) .. but maybe something like if a nation gets under x ports then taking a port from them gets harder in some manner.  Where 'X' is some number deemed appropriate by the gods-that-be.  Maybe have an assigned 'minimum-port' number for each nation depending on its location and where it lies on the 'hard-to-play' scale.

 

Edited by RyebreadMike
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Archipel said:

Imho periodic map wipes would do marvels to the game

Actually a system which wipes out the winning nation could be cool - eg. you get a message "congratulations, your nation just reached annals of history", every member of a clan with X ports gets a medal, and nation gets wiped, having to compete with others.

You get recognition, but again have to fight for ports.

A wipe would be good, but would make largest and best organized group dominate again. If only the winner gets wiped, at least other clans would have a chance to matter for a few days/weeks.

(it's easy to say, hard to plan in a sustainable way)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vazco said:

Actually a system which wipes out the winning nation could be cool - eg. you get a message "congratulations, your nation just reached annals of history", every member of a clan with X ports gets a medal, and nation gets wiped, having to compete with others.

You get recognition, but again have to fight for ports.

A wipe would be good, but would make largest and best organized group dominate again. If only the winner gets wiped, at least other clans would have a chance to matter for a few days/weeks.

(it's easy to say, hard to plan in a sustainable way)

That's another take on end-game.  If a single nation takes all ports but nation capitals they 'win' and port wipe.  But, there again we deal with starting over again with resource / port benefits grinds.  Which isn't necessarily a terrible thing.

 

Edited by RyebreadMike
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RyebreadMike said:

No, I was actually thinking of some sort of dynamic setting in the game that makes it harder and harder to wipe out a nation ... :) should be easy right? lol

 

 

 If alliance system could make if nation own over 50% of port on map that alliances change (grand coalition) against nation until back to lower amount.

 Still no post from dev about this if coming or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Doh said:

 

 If alliance system could make if nation own over 50% of port on map that alliances change (grand coalition) against nation until back to lower amount.

 Still no post from dev about this if coming or not.

Yes.  This is another idea.  Not sure if there are any hidden negatives to it .. but I like it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst we are enthusiastically punching out these great ideas, Devs are releasing the game.  There may not be any more substantive changes in the future.  Fun to dream I guess...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Whilst we are enthusiastically punching out these great ideas, Devs are releasing the game.  There may not be any more substantive changes in the future.  Fun to dream I guess...

This is just me tossing out idea for the halibut.  If the devs already have something planned for this, great.  If they don't and see something here workable, great.  If neither, I'll play/enjoy the game anyway :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alliances make small nation more viable as a part of a larger group. Right now, those underpopulated nation are left to die and rot, with the foreseeable consequence on global player population.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, RyebreadMike said:

Yes.  This is another idea.  Not sure if there are any hidden negatives to it .. but I like it too.

Yes, there are :) Forced alliances don't work, we tested it in the past.

It's fun to throw those ideas out, without thinking through all details. The funny thing is, details usually break them :P One introduced succesful idea is more worth than 100 ideas which were not tested yet :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn you Game Labs! We had such a great time complaining here that you're doing nothing in terms of marketing, and yet you decided to ruin even that!

https://twitter.com/reformedgamers

I hope it's all. If not, please - stop. Let us complain here in peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...