Game Reviews on Steam

[AeRoTR]

I do agree with most reviews on steam.

If  hardcore players(bought 3000 copies) made the reviews, it would be 7/10, but for the casual players who bought 127000 copies this game is 4-5/10.

After release if score is reset, it may be 7-8/10 depending on the development progress, I still believe in the DEVs, I feel they won’t turn this super potential into rubish.

Yet small changes like mission cancel limits were a slap into faces of casuals. If I have 3 missions picked at Carlisle give them close to Carlisle in greenzone please! What was your benefits when limiting cancels, what did you improve? Small things like these brings you more negative scores, rage quits. This is just one example.

There are hundreds of constructive suggestions, critisim in the suggestion section, just start bringing them into game.

[Jesper Dahl]

Reviews are what they are and the dwindling player base the same for a reason.

http://steamcharts.com/app/311310

The patient is dead and on life support due to multiple reasons covered multiple times.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Patient isn't born yet, hence cannot be dead. Intercourse going on though, sometimes gentle, sometimes rough.

[Jesper Dahl]

1 minute ago, Hethwill said:

Patient isn't born yet, hence cannot be dead. Intercourse going on though, sometimes gentle, sometimes rough.

If you want to play the rhetoric game we can call it stillborn then.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Just now, Jesper Dahl said:

If you want to play the rhetoric game we can call it stillborn then.

Glad we can have fun.

[jodgi]

26 minutes ago, Jesper Dahl said:

multiple reasons covered multiple times.

Ye, multiple reasons sometimes contradicting themselves, some of them mutually exclusive. I'm sure you meant those reasons you happen to subscribe to, right?

[Macjimm]

Strange logic. = Low numbers of participants are because of reviews that recommend against buying it.

I think that if a game has a small active population it is probably got to do with game content.

A game that has very rich pleasing gameplay and content is more likely to receive almost all positive views.

I like the game, but it's not for everyone.  I think players should recommend it because they are pleased, not because they hope to increase sales for NA.  If they don't like it ... Don't recommend it.

Last time I checked Steam this game had mostly positive reviews.

[Bach]

20 hours ago, Marcus Corvus said:

Not quite that simple.  I am on clan number two and as a newer player (this year) the whole teamwork thing has been something of a mixed bag.  Part of it is time zone and play-hour incompatibilities.  Part of it is that the person doing the inviting may have expectations of what they are inviting a new player to do that are somewhat at odds with what the player is interested in doing. 

We don't all have 20 hours a week to spend on a video game.

The game is in dire need of an actual clan directory in the new UI.  And not just a the leaderboard that was articulated in the plans.

Then new folks might get a better sense of crew they might actually want to be teamed up with.

This is a very good idea. A clan directory with some simple descriptions.

Clan orientation - PVP, RvR, PVE 

Play style - Casual vs. Hardcore

Languages spoken

Primary time zone

[Bach]

20 hours ago, Wind said:

In past there were few incidents that created ripples. That ripple effect is still active until these days. As I said before NA is a very challenging case, but can be easily fixed with content people are asking for(ex. Tutorial was a success, so much can be built off that foundation) Take for example Patrick OBrian stories, use imagination and create Missions Campaign (Storyline) with rewards. Easy. 

Tutorial was not a success other than to already established players. It may getting you the Hercules and you may loved that. But as someone's helping truly virgin players it has been mostly worthless after the first couple basic tutorials. Every one of them has already abandoned the tutorial.  That thing needs to be spaced out. Like do these two at level 1. Then go play some. Do these ones at level 5 and then these at level 10 etc...  Like most games, they thought they had to finish the tutorial to play.  I'll just say the tutorial has been very frustrating.

[Bach]

I think the only things above I find useful are as follows:

Its a niche game and not for everyone. It's a very hard game compared to most. Some like Chess and some like Checkers or tic tac toe. Tell them the game is very hard but you don't have to call it bad because it's harder than you like it.

Steam only allows a thumb up or down. Whether that is for you, liking the game or recommending a purchase seems to vary on opinion. But it sure would be nice if the go no go could be expended.

Out of 2000 play hours you must have found something you liked. Conversely I'm sure you also found something you didn't like. But reviewing it negatively is still false. You making the assumption that the average gamer just starting out sucks compared to you. Don't be that arrogant prick. If you like the game enough to play it 2000 hours give it a good review. Don't prejudge new players and give a bad review to a game you like enough to play everyday because you are assigning your pre-judgement to their abilities and opinions.

The devs don't need your approval or have to take your advice. A Lot of reviewers seem upset about that.  I'm not sure how to view this but if everyone reviewing with comments on the devs not listening to them was really that good at it perhaps they would have developed their own game. It remains a stupid thing to complain about in a game review.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Bach

[Norfolk nChance]

@Bach

 

 

Its an interesting thread, and like I said earlier I read one years’ worth of STEAM reviews. Even at this point its not straight forward. STEAM offers me 7 “Most Helpful” choices, recently updated, Friends items, funny and most recent. Use the wrong filter and you get a different impression of the game. I did most recent and Negative only.

2,000hr player...

The point you make on the 2,000hr Player is common. Usually goes something like the fantastic potential or the amazing models and then it will be ONE change in the mechanic. The ONE change caused the player to write thumbs down review and rage quit. With the Dev’s not listening and ruining the game.

It’s more like “the Straw that broke the Camels Back...” that’s built up over time rather than the actual one issue. This is why I highlighted its communication as the real problem. The players want to know more about what is actually happening. The long development stage takes its toll...

 

 

Less than 500hrs player...

This review is more cutting in language and is usually three distinct areas. The Ganking (Seal Clubbing as a correct term) is the one-real standout. This I found hard to believe haven’t these kids ever played another MMO? They simply cannot work it out.

The User Interface is horrible the second most common. Then the final area is the grind difficulty of the game with a shattered economy making it impossible to do anything...

 

 

@admin and the Dev’s am sure read them gaining valuable insight. I was surprise how clear cut the demarcation lines between players and the bad reviews posted.

 

 

 

Norfolk.

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Norfolk nChance

[Teutonic]

My review was negative in the past, but i changed it to positive about a year ago.

Ranging from mechanics to "is it worth" to what should be improved on. I tried to make a broad review.

At this moment I really do like this game, as I also really love eve. I feel both games has some similarities (yes they are also vastly different). I feel most of the time I have played has been worth it, but I do not think I would recommend the game to a new player. I would wait until it is release....but I am also waiting to see these UI changes in the next patch because that's a biggy for a lot of playwrs who decided to stop playing NA.

[Ser_Slack]

I finally wrote a review a month or two ago. I gave it a thumbs up simply for the fact that I think it's worth $40. I've got around 1200-1300 hours in game with probably less then 40 hours over the last year. I don't like the rvr changes, I don't like any flags, and I hate the ship grinding.

I wish them (devs) the best but at this rate I doubt I'll play at release either.

[PongoNW]

OP, 

lol the issue is how they broke the game and kept breaking it worse with release after release until it was empty. So I can fully understand someone who played the game hundreds of hours but now knows it is a different game and a much worse one.

Like everyone else of the 1000s of players that have paid for this game, and do not play it. And know it is just because of choices the devs have made and will continue to make.

[Moria15]

On 5/22/2018 at 12:20 PM, Norfolk nChance said:

@Bach

This review is more cutting in language and is usually three distinct areas. The Ganking (Seal Clubbing as a correct term) is the one-real standout. This I found hard to believe haven’t these kids ever played another MMO? They simply cannot work it out.

 

Of course they can work it out..  the difference between ganking (not seal clubbing) in this game is not only is it actively encouraged by the devs..  THERE IS NO PENALTY for doing so in fact there are benefits to doing so in getting PvP marks etc.

Every other MMO has penalties for ganking in one way or another.. 

either it's not that rewarding so only those with the most minimal of ego's will do it, or it has a major impact on another rating which affects your trading or some such, or it's basically a suicide run just for the hell of it.

In all cases, yes it still exists, but at a level that's controllable.. not every damn time you leave a port and you know that the player doing it is not going to really benefit from the action, it's just an ego boost for the sad bastards who hate other people having fun..

The problem isn't ganking as such, its the fact that the game design is so shallow as to make ganking one of the few things that you can do in game and still get rewards for with little to no risk and no repercussions.

Whilst you have shallow game design that allows, encourages and REWARDS people to have fun by denying that fun to others you will continue to get falling numbers and people leaving faster than they are joining as has been the typical approach here for over 2 years.

Why would you stay in a game that encourages the strong to prey on the weak when for the average player, they can play a game and have FUN almost anywhere else.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Moria15

[Norfolk nChance]

@Moria15

 

At the time of writing this post I’d only just really finished reading all the reviews and was perhaps actual was a tad too salty. I also POST and help out if you like on STEAM forum as well. Here the audience is much younger than the GLs Forum. With the more frequent fringe views expressed when wanting to be heard...

The Gank-ing I personally disagree with you on this point. I feel its part and parcel of the game with it as a justified battle tactic and use this in my strategy builds with [ELITE] and family clans. The Seal Clubbing, I do object too.

The Link below is what I believe can truly help with the issue.

http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/25951-idea-norfolk-nnoob-goes-gank-ing/?tab=comments#comment-553695

thanks for the reference POST

 

 

Norfolk.

 

[Moria15]

6 hours ago, Norfolk nChance said:

@Moria15

The Gank-ing I personally disagree with you on this point. I feel its part and parcel of the game with it as a justified battle tactic and use this in my strategy builds with [ELITE] and family clans. The Seal Clubbing, I do object too.

Norfolk.

 

We can agree to disagree..  let me leave this with you...

IMO.. gankers ruin PvP even for the people who like it. As soon as the ganker is met with an opponent that can't be dispatched with one sneak shot, the ganker moves on to find a new place to terrorize players who can't put up any sort of resistance.  You're probably more than familiar with the pattern. Gankers always seem to lose their confidence when a real fight shows up and generally have high speed ships that they run like hell in.

This means, sadly, that real fights are extremely rare in this world that allow ganking. The only PvP-minded folks left waiting in the world are the folks looking for easy pickings. After all, if gankers were such elite PvP masters, they'd be throwing down in open world fights, not picking on noobs. Some games have been developed with a PvP focus in mind and draw players who enjoy that type of gameplay, but this games PvP seems to be accelerating down the path of "gank or be ganked."

Gankers are killing more than newbies -- they're killing the spirit of PvP and the game itself.

Building a game that actively encourages ganking is a death sentence to the game.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Moria15

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Fine points. But... how do you know it is a ganker ?

Suppose you attack someone, even a 2v2 will do. You are winning and the guy gets reinforced, and turns into against the odds.

You going to stay and fight to the last piece of wood, right ?... Or you going to find a avenue of escape ?

Just food for thought. 

[Norfolk nChance]

@Moria15

 

I completely understand where you are coming from regarding Gank-ing. In the end I think we’ll agree to disagree, but with Seal-Clubbing of one mind.

My main focus (when not on a break) at any one time whether defending or attacking is causing a FORCED MULTIPLER in [ELITE]s favor. With timely Gank-ing you used the correct word imo “terrorize” an area for a limited time in a small area.

The Seal Clubbers are killing the New Player game, suffocating him before he's turned into a Junkie. This is quite different from Gank-ing., but I respect your points of view

 

Norfolk.

 

 

[Nelsons Barrel]

Regarding the ganking.

Currently pvp-players face most of their enemies straight in front of the enemies capital. The battles are always open in those zones. Coastguards only feel confident to fight the so called hunters outside the zone with a huge numerical advantage. So going as a lone pvp-player or a small group to those capitals is always expected to be a gank, for one side or the other. You simply can't go there in slow but tanky ships and expect to not get ganked by the coastguard. Coastguard will always say 'Hey, you came to us, don't expect a fair fight here'. And they are right in that point.

On the other hand where do you wanna do pvp if not at the capitals?

Patrol-zone? Gank-fest with determined death through circle.

Freetowns? Maybe your only chance, but even here you don't know whitch side has more guys ready to jump out of port after getting tagged.

Somewhere nowhere in OW? Yeah... Don't waste your time.

Only fair fights you get in PB or in planned battles where every side agreed to bring fair fleets.

 

You gonna live with this kind of gameplay or you leave the game. I guess most left.

[Liq]

4 hours ago, Nelsons Barrel said:

Coastguard will always say 'Hey, you came to us, don't expect a fair fight here'. And they are right in that point.

On the other hand where do you wanna do pvp if not at the capitals?

Patrol-zone? Gank-fest with determined death through circle.

Freetowns? Maybe your only chance, but even here you don't know whitch side has more guys ready to jump out of port after getting tagged.

Somewhere nowhere in OW? Yeah... Don't waste your time.

Only fair fights you get in PB or in planned battles where every side agreed to bring fair fleets.

Exactly what Im thinking.

Fixed patrol zones with fixed RoE could work. But that again will upset the sandbox lovers, which dont like the idea of a mini arena in this game.

So according to them you should leave capitals alone and not even think about interacting with newbs, and at the same time shouldnt be allowed to get a quick battle or two a day in the patrol zone.

The struggle is real.

[Aster]

Apparently they haven't got the memo #DenyContent is dead, #CreatingContent is hot