Naval Action Classic

[Cmdr RideZ]

Have been watching steam charts and slowly decreasing player numbers.

24-peak today 850, the last Sunday under 1000 players, Last 30 days 1097.

Maybe time to get back to 2016 and give us another server called "Naval Action Classic".  That more PvP oriented game so many of us wanted?

Version to look would be the one before tournament. Of course this version would still need many obvious fixes done after.  There are also changes that you have done that were already asked in 2016 but implemented years after. Also decrease amount of grind, easier economy, crew costs were insane this time, make it more focused on combat. Flag based system is still probably the best you have introduced so far.  Old sailing profiles and combat that gave more room for small ships. Repair kits and crew that did support chained battles. Even consider bringing back ship capturing as a valid option for crafting. Multidura is ok or single dura with lighter crafting overall and (crafting cost/rate durability). Skill should matter more, bring back Powder Monkeys 2.5%. Oh and give back our child labor and sub crafting. This game could also easily have competitive tournaments, esports.

Give xp that everyone has earned so far in their whole gaming history. In this kind of more action oriented game it would be ok, especially when all ships will be once again end game ships. If that feels to much then a fresh start.

 

Maybe too late for this as there was already launch, maybe not. It can be that people come back for this action oriented game they always wanted. Would take time to put this together but you have all code in your version control.

[Earl of Grey]

Naval Action Legends is dead, let it RIP ...

[Snoopy]

I'm sorry but this seems very incoherent to me..

How would getting the game as it was in 2016 bring players back when the current version can't? What was more PvP oriented in the 2016 version?

15 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

[..]Also decrease amount of grind, easier economy, crew costs were insane this time, make it more focused on combat. Flag based system is still probably the best you have introduced so far.  Old sailing profiles and combat that gave more room for small ships. Repair kits and crew that did support chained battles. Even consider bringing back ship capturing as a valid option for crafting. Multidura is ok or single dura with lighter crafting overall and (crafting cost/rate durability). Skill should matter more, bring back Powder Monkeys 2.5%.

• the current version has less grind when crafting (massive cut in needed parts and hauling requirements), players even have some control over where specific resources are available to group ports together
• easier economy (delivery mission = helicopter money)
• crew is dirt cheap now
• the flags were abused thats why they had to be pulled
• ship capturing can still be done, npc traders will drop building materials and you keep every ship now, even ai captured first rates

To me, the current version has all the things you want for the game as of 2016, and tournaments is kinda on us players to organize. (the loss of the duel rooms hurts, sure)
As far as skill is concerned, if anything, the current repairs allow a more skilled player to fight against worse odds. 

I agree that 2016 combat was easier for smaller ships against heavier vessels than today but I don't think combat is a problem. It always was (and is) the one thing Naval Action is amazing at.

[Audacious]

Got my 1st pvp fight in 4 weeks of sailing. Happy. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Audacious

[Corona Lisa]

2 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

Maybe time to get back to 2016 and give us another server called "Naval Action Classic". Of course this version would still need many obvious fixes done after.

So to summarize you want a new server with a different version of the game on which they also need to work on. What will gamelabs gain in return?

Edited October 10, 2019 by Jon Snow lets go

[Macjimm]

6 hours ago, Snoopy said:

What was more PvP oriented in the 2016 version?

I don't understand this either.  Brits sunk 7 first rates in one battle this morning.  (None were port battle kills.)   Just counted and there were another 36 players sunk in the last hour alone. (No port battle kills ...yet).   Must be interesting for the devs to read these posts, when they can see accurate PvP stats.  Could be that there is more PvP now that ever.

[Cmdr RideZ]

7 hours ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

So to summarize you want a new server with a different version of the game on which they also need to work on. What will gamelabs gain in return?

They might actually get a game that is not dead.  So whats your problem?

[Cmdr RideZ]

2 hours ago, Louis Garneray said:

We'll not go back to 2016.... because we don't have a time machine... And the more it goes and the population dwindle and the more I have big doubts that we'll get a supply of new players.

A lot of pvp players have given up and our admin doesn't seem to be alarmed by it nor in a hurry to pump out updates that would help with the population situation... Unless their big plan is to use fall or Xmas big sale to get new players? Who knows now. So many of us had so much hope in the future of the game and all that is left is bitterness.
I use to log on every day...  doesn't happen anymore and when I log in most of the time I logoff right away, I don't even sail.

 

Pretty much this. Would not be even surprised if they just let the game die.

admin had "trusted" friends whose opinion he was listening. This was probably the biggest mistake as he was listening wrong people. When they started these radical changes, I think there were some people here on forum telling them to not ruin the game.  They did not listen them, it felt almost like admin went in "block" mode and did not receive any input.

If there is something to save here it is going to be done with action oriented game.

[Cmdr RideZ]

Now there is plenty of PvP?

If there were plenty of PvP you would be asking repair kit patch. admin tried to have similar system for crew as there is now for repair kits. Many players on this forum told that they don't want to be sailing back to port all the time, "bound to port". Now you can still teleport crew to your ship, but if these PvP players had not been there I can promise that you would sail back to port to get more crew after every single fight.

Everyone on this forum can defend the game and tell how good it is. The game is dying, maybe time to think why and not just deny. Less grind, less craft, less economy, less gear influence, more action, more skill based PvP. What I fastly listed, it is actually pretty obvious list, no?

[admin]

classic wont be playable

 

[admin]

8 hours ago, Lars Kjær said:

Can't we just stop the delusion about an influx of new players?! The game released. Ppl came back, saw what happened to NA, ppl left. The yes-men killed the game, a "MMO" with less than 600 players on the PvP server in peak hours is a dead game.

END OF STORY.

 

Usual haters. 
I suggest you go for a walk and think about the perspective, for example stop looking at NA from the perspective of WOW, or Warframe. Start looking from the perspective of Darkfall (most anticipated hardcore mmo when we started the company)

A) 800 peak concurrent players bring NA to top 200 games on steam (by online) ABOVE $150 mln budget Planetside 2, Above my beloved dark souls 2 and DS remastered and even above multiplayer award winning doom remake.
B ) NA is the second most played hardcore sandbox mmo with full loot on steam (eve online is at 2000 players on steam)
C) NA is literally my first game i made.

Want the game with 100000 online players? There are no plans to casualize and optimize for online.
End of story

[admin]

13 minutes ago, Staunberg said:

Thx for your reply. Allways nice to get an response. Ppl have been worried abouth the game, and if I got you right. We are where you want the game to be.

Market decides where the game will be, community can provide positive or negative perspective to new players, developers can influence the course, but overall market decides. 

The game has been sitting at 600-800 people since autumn 2016. I see no reasons to worry that something will drastically change. For example some claim that limited port battle BR is the most relevant thing that will immediately bring 100000 of players to the game, but all veterans know that we had limited BR and had the same 600 people. The only thing that had clear direct influence on online were wipes . 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, admin said:

Market decides where the game will be, community can provide positive or negative perspective to new players, developers can influence the course, but overall market decides. 

The game has been sitting at 600-800 people since autumn 2016. I see no reasons to worry that something will drastically change. For example some claim that limited port battle BR is the most relevant thing that will immediately bring 100000 of players to the game, but all veterans know that we had limited BR and had the same 600 people. The only thing that had clear direct influence on online were wipes . 

Partly true. Remember last time we had variable BR and 600 people there were wipes looming, and release on the horizon. Quite a lot of players didn't want to invest time and energy into earning ports or items that would be wiped.

Also, RvR (arguably the only endgame content) isn't working. If a nation actively attacks another one repeatedly (and wins), they capture all the high point port bonus ports, leaving their opponent crippled. Look at the Pirates, instead of fighting their Frontline battles in the smaller ports, their entire crafting setup was based around 3 ports, which all fell within 2 weeks. 

In theory this is good, the pirates were defeated. The issue is many players choose to stop playing, or simply join the big nation's since they can't defend themselves. 

[Malcolm3]

21 minutes ago, admin said:

Market decides where the game will be, community can provide positive or negative perspective to new players, developers can influence the course, but overall market decides.

But these "market decisions" are based on community behavior, reviews, perspectives etc. And they are based on developers actions.

 

[Genevieve Malfleurs]

1 hour ago, admin said:

Market decides where the game will be, community can provide positive or negative perspective to new players, developers can influence the course, but overall market decides. 

The game has been sitting at 600-800 people since autumn 2016. I see no reasons to worry that something will drastically change. For example some claim that limited port battle BR is the most relevant thing that will immediately bring 100000 of players to the game, but all veterans know that we had limited BR and had the same 600 people. The only thing that had clear direct influence on online were wipes . 

first, thanks for active communication with the community! regarding port battles: shouldn't the br-limit for ship-types be deleted? let all ships take part please and see what happens. kind regards, Gene

[Macjimm]

51 minutes ago, admin said:

The game has been sitting at 600-800 people since autumn 2016.

Thanks for the clarification, that's how I remember it.  And 200-300 during the low off hours.  Yet there are continual urgent posts claiming the number of players online is falling, and soon the game will be empty.   Funny, ... if the population has been dropping dramatically for three years ... there should be no one playing now.  But instead the numbers have stayed the same.

Sounds like mythical predictions of impending doom.   "Quick!  Change NA now, to satisfy my wishes, or soon we will have no one playing it !" 

My prediction is;.   3 years from now  we will still be hearing urgent warnings that the numbers are plummeting, but 600-800 people will play at peak times, and there'll be 200-300 at low levels.   And it'll still be lots of fun and highly addictive.

[Georg Fromm]

20 hours ago, Snoopy said:

......

I agree that 2016 combat was easier for smaller ships against heavier vessels than today but I don't think combat is a problem. It always was (and is) the one thing Naval Action is amazing at.

And that's why NA imho will not survive. It's nothing half and nothing whole.

[Sir Texas Sir]

5 hours ago, EliteDelta said:

Partly true. Remember last time we had variable BR and 600 people there were wipes looming, and release on the horizon. Quite a lot of players didn't want to invest time and energy into earning ports or items that would be wiped.

Also, RvR (arguably the only endgame content) isn't working. If a nation actively attacks another one repeatedly (and wins), they capture all the high point port bonus ports, leaving their opponent crippled. Look at the Pirates, instead of fighting their Frontline battles in the smaller ports, their entire crafting setup was based around 3 ports, which all fell within 2 weeks. 

In theory this is good, the pirates were defeated. The issue is many players choose to stop playing, or simply join the big nation's since they can't defend themselves. 

I can see some ports having different BR's,  but I would like to see it more a clan owners choose as I would prefer important ports to have high BR and none important ports lower.   Like higher maintenance the higher the BR and if you want to have low maintenance you can have a lower BR.  @admin also once mention about having the BR go up with the importance/wealth income of a port from a base which would been a way to start with a low BR and than have it get bigger the more money that port makes.  

As for the Nations issue with RvR is that some nations just get in a comfort zone and don't want to fight (that cause not all players are hard core PVP players).  We also have an issue with nations getting to big and little nations just giving up.  Alliance system needs to be brought back and the last Faction post was a great way to do this where devs can set up factions that work together.  Don't like the faction your in just use your forge papers and switch to a nation that has a Faction you like.   

Nations should be defeated in the game, but the problem is we have no true end game in the RvR world....no map resets or condition of a win.  Which ends up getting a very boring and stale server after a while as you end up with one clear nation way to powerful for the others to fight.   I don't know why multi nations don't all attack Russia at once and crush it's power, but instead as mention above we gett where every one wants to be buddy buddy with that person so not to be attacked.  For example US won't help DUTCH vs Russia even though DUTCH helped them against the pirates, simply cause US doesn't want to be crushed by Russia.   So now you have a nation that won't support or help them fight a bigger stronger nation.   Something needs to be done to prevent the RUSSIAN ZERG (this could happen with any nation) we have right now where every one seems to be jumping on the winning team until the game gets dead and every one stops playing cause they are bored or afraid to loose things if they did attack the big BEAR.

13 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

For the record. I believe current BR for PB is one of factors that is making NA bleed rvr players. 

Rvr players must be definitely bored sailing always ocean/santisima.

You can stop the bleed by fixing that mechanic and others, such as a trading based on very long distances.

I don't think it's as big as the issue that every small port is trapped behind a capital big port.  Raids would be a way to allow small BR fights on sub ports that don't mean some one looses a port but we still get the smaller BR battles that many want.  The problem right now is that one nation can field 2 PB fleets but no screeners while another nation can fill those two PB's and have screeners at both.  There is a big imbalance of player numbers between nation number 1 and 2 in game right now and without some time of alliance system it's not going to change any time soon.    We really need to bring in the faction system and test it.  

5 big Factions is way better than 11 nations.....

[captain smile]

5 hours ago, admin said:

Market decides where the game will be, community can provide positive or negative perspective to new players, developers can influence the course, but overall market decides. 

The game has been sitting at 600-800 people since autumn 2016. I see no reasons to worry that something will drastically change. For example some claim that limited port battle BR is the most relevant thing that will immediately bring 100000 of players to the game, but all veterans know that we had limited BR and had the same 600 people. The only thing that had clear direct influence on online were wipes . 

Reduce Br for port battles 

[AeRoTR]

This is still the best hardcore age of sail game until the next one. 

I can understand NA is very important for @admin. It is in a good state, but if he listened the right feedbacks, thid would be in fantastic state, easy 2000-3000 online. 

I feel like the dev team is a bit overwhelmed, and they gave up a bit. 

There is lots of pvp. They just made most ships capturable, not all of them are shitty. There are some good build and 3/5 blue or 4/5 purple ones. 

They made casual cargo missions which is very easy money. 

So most difficult parts are eleminated for having fun, it is easier now. 

I would love to see some less BR in port battles. 

I would love to see 55 point ports removed, or huge nerf to port bonus. A 55 points bonus ship is much better than a golden ship with no port bonus. Too much difference which kills the skill based pvp. 

Now if you lose a 55-45 shipyard, like Pirate nation, it is a bit of game over for nation players. Should not matter that much. It should matter less, it should be "nice to have" not "must have". @adminplease look into this.

Cargo missions easy and good for casuals. But real trading is dead now, please revive real trading, more profit but much more risk. Increase good price, buy and sell, increase profit. But as all prices inceased, more risk, as you lose more money. This is high end bussiness, only for real veterans, only with escort etc. This is very important! 

Also as we requested many times, please increase capital zone size, but tailored according to capitals, you can do it, there are only few. For example Mortimer has big capital zone while KPR is tiny. Let capital zones to be easy areas. Do not forget real endgame NA is near 45 to 55 points ports, most veterans already there, so there is risk there, pvp etc.

Let casuals, new players turn into veterans, but needs lots of grass and safe area, to start transforming into Wolf, they need to move to dangerous waters if they want the end game. Give them time and space, this won't hurt, but we all benefit. 

@admin look I know you do not like me and some others (the haters?) , but do not get confused, we all love the game, we want it to be much better. Game is good, but still lots of potential to be much better, dream to become real. You say top 200 game and seem content, this game can be much higher, and can be an EVE on its own category, or just better.

Still we trust in you, and your beautiful game. 

(Sorry for mistakes, mobile Phone and super idiot auto correct makes it difficult.)

Edited October 11, 2019 by AeRoTR

[Angus MacDuff]

2 minutes ago, AeRoTR said:

Now if you lose a 55-45 shipyard, like Pirate nation, it is a bit of game over for nation players. Should not matter that much. It should matter less, it should be "nice to have" not "must have". @adminplease look into this.

Agree that this is a very big deal.  Every nation should have a "safe" crafting port.  I know all the arguments that nations should fight for their premium ports to keep them but the end result is still going to be players leaving the nation or outright quitting because of the losses in time and effort. 

[van der Clam]

@admin Seeing your YT channel has 4k subs, it would be nice to see regular vids pop back up giving us update info, future plans, ships, etc.

Edited October 11, 2019 by van der Clam

[Potemkin]

Hey while we're making unreasonable demands and complaining for the hell of it id like to throw in my demand that small battle/trafalgar rooms be brought back. Thank you.

[admin]

On 10/11/2019 at 12:58 PM, Wraith said:

Hmmm... numbers are important, no need for Admin to make them up... (EVE in green, NA in blue, WoWs Steam version in orange):

Exactly . numbers are important yet you use unreadable charts starting in 2012 

On the date of my post eve online on steam was less than 2000 . You can check the numbers at steamdb.info (much more accurate)

free to play casual shooter WOWS was never mentioned in my post. 

[qw569😳]

On 10/11/2019 at 9:58 PM, Wraith said:

Hmmm... numbers are important, no need for Admin to make them up... (EVE in green, NA in blue, WoWs Steam version in orange):

imho.

If Dasha Perova spoke about the NA patchnotes, as in WOWS, then there would be more players.

Edited October 13, 2019 by qw569