Jump to content
Naval Games Community

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, vazco said:

This game was bought by 100-200k users according to stats, for probably approx. 30 EUR on average. Counting safely - with Steam costs and without DLC's, it's around 2 mil of EUR of income. It's more than enough to hire someone to actually care for goals of the game. It's more than worth the investment :)

 

I'm convinced that with a different approach at the start it would be fairly simple to increase sales quite drastically. It's very easy to say this now, after seeing how it all went :) It's quite simple to draw from this a prediction for the future.

 

Says every project manager I've ever talked to lol. Some people/projects cannot be fixed.

What you are missing is this studio makes other games, employs other people and a with operation costs a majority of their revenue does not go back to the game. 

Naval action was always a side project until its complete we wont see it expand past what the developers wanted. Remember they had a large player base made changes that pissed off that player base and now we have roughly a few hundred people playing this game because they wanted to make their game.

Posted
3 hours ago, koiz said:

Says every project manager I've ever talked to lol. Some people/projects cannot be fixed.

Most (not all) people can't be "fixed". Many projects can.

ps. I'm not the project manager :)

3 hours ago, koiz said:

Naval action was always a side project until its complete we wont see it expand past what the developers wanted. Remember they had a large player base made changes that pissed off that player base and now we have roughly a few hundred people playing this game because they wanted to make their game.

If I twist your grammar, you identified the problem correctly - devs implemented features and changes requested by playerbase. Solution - don't implement features which playerbase asks you to implement. Llisten to facts, gather good data and implement what answers needs of the playerbase, not their requests. Everyone will be happier then.

 

3 hours ago, koiz said:

What you are missing is this studio makes other games, employs other people and a with operation costs a majority of their revenue does not go back to the game. 

It's clear it doesn't go back to the game. That's why this game will make a few mil, not a few mil per year.

 

I guess I'm done with discussion, no point in running in circles :) 

Posted
39 minutes ago, vazco said:

Most (not all) people can't be "fixed". Many projects can.

I've heard it plenty of times. The actions of admin and the rest of the game labs staff regarding this project has always been anti-playerbase. You can't fix stupid.

Quote

If I twist your grammar, you identified the problem correctly - devs implemented features and changes requested by playerbase.

No need to twist a thing, I said what I said. 

The problem is they built a game for themselves not their playerbase.

Quote

Solution - don't implement features which playerbase asks you to implement. Llisten to facts, gather good data and implement what answers needs of the playerbase, not their requests. Everyone will be happier then.

What features did the playerbase request that impacted the scope? Anything we complained about was obvious to begin with and wasn't a major change.

This team set expectations plenty of times all on their own and then missed them.

This is the team that ignored that the game was too hardcore and watched their player base die off, to eventually nerf it again.

The truth is this project was never professional and that's a company problem, there's not a framework on earth that will fix this mess.

Posted
6 hours ago, koiz said:

What features did the playerbase request that impacted the scope? Anything we complained about was obvious to begin with and wasn't a major change.

Almost everything apart from battle mechanics was suggested by players:

  • the concept of Open World
  • austerity patch and removal of austerity patch
  • hostility mechanics
  • forts
  • protected zones, nerfing protected zones, then again empowering protected zones
  • economy
  • VM's and removal of VM's
  • BR limits in PB's
  • PvP marks
  • unique woods

 

Maybe battle mechanics works great because it wasn't shaped by community, but by a consistent goals of developers? Maybe OW has issues because developers implemented exactly those features which community wanted them to implement and not those which community actually needed?

 

When you go to a doctor, he listens to you, but then makes his own measurements and suggests his solution. He doesn't do what you suggest him to do. He also doesn't base on his vision, but on actual measurements. It would be stupid if he worked differently, right?

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, vazco said:

Almost everything apart from battle mechanics was suggested by players:

  • the concept of Open World
  • austerity patch and removal of austerity patch
  • hostility mechanics
  • forts
  • protected zones, nerfing protected zones, then again empowering protected zones
  • economy
  • VM's and removal of VM's
  • BR limits in PB's
  • PvP marks
  • unique woods
  • the concept of Open World (What... this is what the game is that's not an excuse nor was it something people were clamoring for in sea trials)
  • austerity patch and removal of austerity patch (This was not a major change and the devs fucked up on this one so it had to be fixed)
  • hostility mechanics (Actually we want the flag system back... wrong again)
  • forts (Yet again wrong, another change that was always planned)
  • protected zones, nerfing protected zones, then again empowering protected zones (Small change again...)
  • economy (This isnt even fixed...)
  • VM's and removal of VM's (WHAT! They were only removed with a wipe and the name has changed but come on man do some research if you want someone to take you seriously)
  • BR limits in PB's (Actually most of us do not like the current state and think it should be re balanced, too many small pbs but this was needed and dont act like it was a major change)
  • PvP marks (We've had this for awhile)
  • unique woods (Another Dev change)

What you listed did not impact the scope heavily. The changes made independently heavily outweigh anything you listed and anything this community wanted. 

To be clear that list is bullshit, when I go to a doctor he doesn't straw man me into a solution. Do some real research next time:

https://store.steampowered.com/news/?appids=311310

 

 

Edited by koiz

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...