WANTED : NA dead or alive ?

[Celtiberofrog]

Dev's, If you want NA to be attractive again :

Launch final release asap.

This vanilla could be called "Naval Action : Evolution"

The vanilla should be Based on "successful" 2016 NA configuration adapting as much as possible today's
settings (ships, BR, hostility, PB systems, etc...) but with much simpler
Global economy & crafting systems (Trade deliveries & 2 durabilities/ship available for a start).

Evolution because this game will include a "modification Patch" every 6 months

During those six months, every clan that has held the greatest number of ports
for 4 consecutive weeks will be rewarded by having the priviledge to chose (tick or untick) 2 modifications among a
large list of modifications at the disposal to NA players.

The "every 6 months modification patch" will include a maximum of 10
modifications.

The Dev's apply the patch within their own delivery. Then new 6 months
period starts.

NA Evolution will be therefore driven and built up by players clans step by
step

The heavy data base of modifications tested for the last three years, should
allow the Dev's to offer a large choice in the list of modifications (for
several years ahead).

 

Cheers all

Frog

[z4ys]

3 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

No.

why?

[Nelsons Barrel]

WTF did I read? Makes absolutely no sense to give players control of developing a game as they are not objective enough to do so.

[Moria15]

It's giving players the opportunity to drive development by listening to those that shouted loudest on the forums that got us to where we are today..  so

NO

The average gamer has less than zero idea about game development and the implications of decisions made..  Game development is an art of balance and functionality and few people can put that together in a reliable base.  Mind you.. a lot of programmers and "game developmnent" companies aren't much better and think that the game design part is all down to shiney graphics and a prayer. 

Edited May 27, 2018 by Moria15

[Fellvred]

Can't really agree with much of the ideas sadly - the game will live or die because of new players coming in, not because of the thoughts of a few old clans. I'd much rather have the devs tweaking any mods every few months on a balancing cycle.

 

It might not be a very popular idea amongst some people but the game needs to be as easy as possible for new players for the game to be successful (regarding numbers of players). Most 6th rate vessels should be treated as part of the tutorial, losses should mean nothing to a new player - throw as many free rookie ships (brigs/snows etc) at them as you can to get them over the hump of the first few hours.

There shouldn't be a 'fear' of sailing out onto the open sea until players start getting into the larger 6th rates and smaller frigates.

[Capn Rocko]

No

[Guest]

So you'd suggest throwing away most of the last 2 years of development... Hate to break it to you, but that won't bring people back. 

[EdWatchmaker]

Greetings Captains and Devs,

First, I'll give Capt Frog kudos for sticking his neck out and putting forth an idea though, sadly, I must disagree and vote no on this one. He loves the game enough to take his time to pitch an idea. He is not, as some do, bitching, moaning, complaining, having not gotten their way, throwing themselves on the floor, pounding their fists, kicking their feet and squalling like a squalid brats. So while doing real life this morning I've been kicking his idea around in my head with the help of Seadog Wade. As you can see I've just promoted him to a ranked sea dog.

I see in here the germ of an idea. What are people wanting on the PVP server? Constantly I hear "There's no PVP.", "There's no RVR." and a lot of other stuff. I see the game getting stagnant. What if every 6 months the Caribbean is struck by a massive catastrophe. The ports are reset so that everyone, that likes that sort of thing, can have at it again. Awards can be handed out etc. Massive patches can be applied without wrecking peoples game play. This might lead to greater player retention and game testing. Keeping it fresh.

I must continue to think that the training of new players needs to be done on the PVE server till they are ready for the rigors of the PVP server. But we must somehow keep the old ones interested too by somehow livening up the PVP server with out discouraging newcomers.

For now I've get back to real life.

Fair sailing all and have a great day/night.         

Edited May 27, 2018 by EdWatchmaker
A useless word I didn't catch in my proof reading.

[Thonys]

6 hours ago, Celtiberofrog said:

NA Evolution will be therefore driven and built up by players clans step by
step

I can tell yeh ...its the Dumbest thing to do ...

Edited May 27, 2018 by Thonys

[Celtiberofrog]

PROS:

==> 2016 was the highest number of players NA ever had.

• Since then, after an incredibly number of patches, NA has constantly lost peeps. There must be an obvious conclusion here.

==> Only few clans, powerfull enough to stay for 4 CONSECUTIVE weeks at the top of conquest board. can tick/untick 2 choices 

• A patch with 10 changes max, where 2 to 5 clans have pointed or cancel modifications, would have rather small effects (compared to what we experimented).
• Every 6 months + patch delivery.
• Not a big deal, quite smouth evolution towards what strongest groups would like to see being modified.

==> Dev's have very much gone too far in many different issues, NA has never been so low as today. But all those issues should remain a data base of potential modifications.

==> Not throwing away everything at all, all current settings (structure, dynamic, balistic,etc...) would stay (read first post).

==> A game that can evolve towards players wishes in long run, sounds to me very attractive, as it would sustain a strong community with a sain and proactive ambition.

CONS:

==> The system of being rewarded to the priviledge of applying 2 choices, might not the best methode, there must be some other way with same effects.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Celtiberofrog

[Nelsons Barrel]

Dude, just look how KoC behaved in his active time. Night flips here and there, just to get as many ports as possible. He even made suggestions on why night flips should weaken the flipped nation even more. He does not want to fight fair nor does he wants to give players fun or content, he just plays to upset other players. 

The only thing that stopped him was a broken rvr mechanic, that made rvr totally meaningless and the overall loss of players. As he can't pay for timers on half the map and does not like the boring as fuck hostility missions. 

 

You want to have such toxic players in control of the game development process? 

[Aquillas]

Why giving successful clans only the control of the rules of the game? 

This would freeze the positions, because successful clans will set rules to "secure" acquisitions. Others will die and leave the game. 

We would soon see the death of the gameplay, because other clans and other nations will soon have an impossible task. 

What would be the place for independent players? Have they to leave too? Remember, in 2016, the power of clans was simply an opportunity for players to share stuff and initiatives, if (and only if) they like to do so. 

More power to clans = more obligations for players.

More obligations for players = less players. 

[Celtiberofrog]

Nelsons Barrel: "You want to have such toxic players in control of the game development process?" 

Not sure if with 2 modifications per clan every 6 months would let such toxic clan leaders control the game evolution in medium run.

Those players have their opponants, other clan leaders would fight hard to untick the toxic choice. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Celtiberofrog

[Alvar Fañez de Minaya]

I do not think that this is the solution to the problems that the game has ... Although I am very much in agreement that the game has fallen since 2016 a little more with each change.

The first thing we have to have all clear is what kind of game they are doing ..... Because there are two possibilities ....

1 A game for hardcore players with about 200 or 300 players with great difficulty to get good woods, magic cards etc etc (ie, more or less what we have now).

2 A game for casual players, with about 2000 players, with facility to make ships, with more simplicity in the cards, that is, giving facilities to players who can not be connected 8 hours a day .... (more similar to what was in 2016). Prizing the skill of the player and the organization in battle over how hard the magic cards or rare woods have made the ship.

I do not know if by the recommendations of the hardcore players that are all day in the forum, or by the will of the developers, this game has become a game only for those who can be 8 hours a day Playing ... ... And that's not more than 400 people playing.

I'm not against it (well yes, but I'm silent if that is the game that most people want) ... But let everyone be clear, that 8 hours a day there are very few people who can dedicate them, and if we want a hardcore game ....... the number of players will not increase.

Probably nobody else thinks this, but if I do not say it, I bust ...

Greetings to all

[CeltiberoClearco]

1 hour ago, Alvar Fañez de Minaya said:

I do not think that this is the solution to the problems that the game has ... Although I am very much in agreement that the game has fallen since 2016 a little more with each change.

The first thing we have to have all clear is what kind of game they are doing ..... Because there are two possibilities ....

1 A game for hardcore players with about 200 or 300 players with great difficulty to get good woods, magic cards etc etc (ie, more or less what we have now).

2 A game for casual players, with about 2000 players, with facility to make ships, with more simplicity in the cards, that is, giving facilities to players who can not be connected 8 hours a day .... (more similar to what was in 2016). Prizing the skill of the player and the organization in battle over how hard the magic cards or rare woods have made the ship.

I do not know if by the recommendations of the hardcore players that are all day in the forum, or by the will of the developers, this game has become a game only for those who can be 8 hours a day Playing ... ... And that's not more than 400 people playing.

I'm not against it (well yes, but I'm silent if that is the game that most people want) ... But let everyone be clear, that 8 hours a day there are very few people who can dedicate them, and if we want a hardcore game ....... the number of players will not increase.

Probably nobody else thinks this, but if I do not say it, I bust ...

Greetings to all

The first possibility does not exist, as hard players need those of the second one. The proof is in the current situation.

Frog's idea isn't bad. I do not believe that these are'radical' changes. They could be, for example, to put in some upgrades of speed-maneuvering to the detriment of the thickness-hull. 
In this way, from time to time there would be different tactics or different ships to dominate.

 

[Sento de Benimaclet]

Why do not implement a survey, but not here, but within the game, mandatory compliance in which they ask a series of questions (alliances of countries, upgrades, areas of reinforcements, resources, etc.) and that which has been chosen by majority by captains is what is desired in the game? Would not that poll finish with many controversies and most importantly with the abandonment of many players? Greetings.

[Alvar Fañez de Minaya]

8 minutes ago, rediii said:

Doesnt mean it would change for the better. Maybe majority of players support that all battles stay open until battle is done? Would that be good for the game? Definatly not.

Also there were many good changes lately. Going back to 2016 state of the game wouldnt be only improvements.

Of course there have been improvements since 2016. There were flags, reinforcements, there have been many changes and many beneficial, what I think has been a step back against the players who can dedicate less time to the game has been the subject of woods and magic cards ..... He who has a ship like that does not want to lose it ...

From my point of view ships more equal and easier to get = less fear of losing them = more equality = more PVP

Players who can devote less time to play and who can not get that type of boat are fleeing the game if they have not already fled, only players who can spend a lot of time and therefore have access to those boats will be left.

If you want to have 2000 players on the server, you have to make things much easier for casual players (who are 80%) to be able to fight on equal terms with the 20% who can devote 6 or more hours a day. ..

[Alvar Fañez de Minaya]

 

I think you're very optimistic Rediii .... From my point of view, producing ships with the three woods (live, oak and fir)  in yellow, purple, blue and green was much easier to produce them, and the battles were much more disputed .... But I'm telling you that it's my opinion .... And possibly I'm wrong, because after watching combats in which 10 ships sank 15 or 20 without suffering any loss, it took away the desire to play ... I tried to make some elite ship, but it was impossible for me to do it just by connecting only one hour a day and I left the game.....

Edited May 29, 2018 by Alvar Fañez de Minaya

[Celtiberofrog]

Dediii: "Bad players think upgrades matter a lot. While some do and 4-5 ships are nice to have its not a winbutton or something"

Same players skill fight 1V1 with same ship types, today mostly modules & books will make difference between these 2 identical ships. (not skill)

Today you can get an incredible number of different modules, the more hours you play the more chances you'd collect some special books, etc... in 2016 the game was far much simpler.

Casual players are the key for NA to become somehow popular, in addition to that if you get anthousiastic newcomers (cause the game is rapidly learnt), NA will take off for sure.

As I wrote in earlier post (but peeps seem not to read it all), lots of developped stuff up to now are very good, and hopefully those recent features integrated into a simpler game as 2016 NA stage, would be ideal.