Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What did PotBS do wrong?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I was just paying another visit to the PotBS forums, and as much as I might hope that FLS will be able to turn the game around (as they sound like a decent bunch of people), what is being written there, despite it coming from an arguably very vocal minority, seems to indicate that the game has entered a death spiral.
Just notice how every server now wishes to transfer to Antigua where the grass is supposedly greener. For the record, it was also where most of the closed servers' populations went in April after the transfers were implemented, but every other server seems plagued by some sort of situation that makes it unplayable.
Roberts players have been complaining about night flips for months, but this issue has more or less been dismissed by developers.
Rackham did okay at first following the transfer period, but it then suffered from players leaving for Warhammer. France, which used to win the map, suffered numerous casualties, and now the British are once more steamrolling across the server -- and they don't care that their victory is hollow (I should have known, we had them on Blackbeard before they transferred out). And now the usual forum loudmouths are blaming one another for the deterioration of the community.
As for Blackbeard, it seemed to never have recovered from the transfer period, which turned it into a pirate haven. Now it's pretty much dying.
So it seems everyone wants to transfer to Antigua, something to which the devs have yet to answer. In the meantime, if your heart is up to it, you can read a slew of devlogs posted in the past month or so, detailing everything in the works regarding that "ambush gameplay" thing floating around since late May.
A smart thing -- on paper at least -- to diminish ganking is to allow reinforcements for both sides. Which in theory allows players from one nation to come to the rescue of another player being attacked. But the problem is that it runs smack into the other big issue left unsolved: faction imbalance. If you can get 20 British reinforcements as opposed to 4 Spanish, guess who will have the advantage in the long run? The question of faction imbalance basically destroys every other attempt to tweak game mechanics: Whatever you do, the largest faction will always have an advantage.
They were also talking about putting something on the character creation screen to indicate which faction was underpopulated, and state which advantages that would confer upon players rolling into said factions. The problem is that the advantages are essentially meaningless if your nation can't put together enough people to be competitive in the RvR aspect of the game -- and as other players commented, how many gamers would actually choose the path of least resistance anyway, hence roll British or Pirate?
Also the beautiful logic that seems to prevail among some players of the larger faction these days is that the larger faction should go after vital enemy ports, no matter how inefficiently said enemy can defend itself, because the weaker faction will not bother to defend a port which is NOT vital. In other words, we're forcing you to fight us, because it is not fun otherwise.
And to continue on another note: The latest quote by Rusty, who wrote in a response to someone who said that the "Sun Tzu book has got a lot to answer for" (GB, if you couldn't guess) :
As for Mr. Tzu: Your point is well taken, and cuts to the heart of the disconnect in the conversation. There are three types of people: Those who want a fair fight (which Mr. Tzu doesn't particulary endorse), those who want unrestricted challenge and don't mind losing (me, and about 50 other people in the world), and those who want to gank others but not be ganked. If we were solely concerned with the integrity of a real vision of combat, that's pretty easy. However, our goal is to mix unrestricted challenge with balanced combat. That requires us to allow the former, but to push (via game rules) towards the latter. Ganking, for example, can be fun even when you're on the receiving end if it only happens under 5% of the time. If it happens 50% of the time, it's a problem.
Long gone is the time when Rusty could post on the forums about how Sun Tzu's Art of War "should be called The Art of the Gank" with impunity.
Because it was almost 100% like voyage century which is a 100% free game, with slightly less amazing graphics. I guess this MMO was just destined to sail adrif
Oh, and about Isildur's blog: Notice how nothing at all was posted there in the crucial time window of November 2007 to May 2008.
He seemed to have avoided talking about PotBS both before and after release, although he posted stuff about it elsewhere on occasion (Scott Jennings' Broken Toys blog, for example, which yielded his "next big failure" statement).
The blog is useful insofar as it says much about Isildur's preferences when it comes to gaming. Reading this, the question that immediately comes to mind is "how did this intelligent guy end up creating such a dud as PotBS, which seems to go against every one of his precepts?"
This is where beta players such as Jokerkaaos can hopefully shed some light.
Thanks for those blog and post links. I read some more and of how the population is not doing well, so I did a check.
For a month worth of time, all but one server has been at Light, with only Antigua having two occurrences of Medium.
Not doing so good, even after the merge.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Amateur developers with Big ideas, they just couldnt pull it together.
I waited for the game for about a year before it released. Never have played it, not even tested it, just heard how bad it was so i stayed away.
-Jive
I can see why some of those guys are saddened to talk about PotBS. I was just a beta tester/follower of development and it makes me sad, too. The FLS team seemed like a good bunch of really intelligent, communicative devs. Well, they did start to clam up as release neared, but I think they were just too disappointed to lie to us to our faces (like, say, Funcom does).
I signed up for beta the day I heard about PotBS, several years before it happened. I enjoy Age-of-Sail games and fiction a lot, and I had high hopes for some sort of cool simulation-quality MMO gaming in that vein. I still think the motif could work in a serious, PvP-based MMO, too.
But PotBS isn't it, unless they just completely remake the game from the engine/concept up.
I don't really find fault with the team, though. I loved their original vision, and some of the comprises they made were just a matter of dreams meeting reality - things like having a full open-ocean game with realistic sailing times, reefs, variable winds, explorable land, viable small ships.... all these dreams died hard.
And even the things that stayed just didn't work. The PvP and economy weren't balanced, risk/reward-wise. This was fatal when the concept is for PvP to drive the economy (like it does in EVE). Instanced battles are also a nightmare to manage, especially when the grouping interface is bad (and here I *do* blame the devs).
They also screwed up badly releasing the game with an almost-completely-untested endgame, hoping to make it work on the fly. You just CAN'T get away with that in MMOs anymore, especially when you make it possible for people to power-grind to max level in a week or two.
Ah, well... I'll keep watching it from afar. You never know.
Taljinn just said it! I agree.
-----------------------------------
Life is too short to play bad games.
What did PotBS do wrong?
Actually according to the latest news release here at this site, it is just a matter of marketing really.
"Along with update 1.7 will come a big marketing push. There hasn’t been much marketing so far because they wanted to get the game ready for a more casual group of people. They launched at a point where they felt the game would be ready to go and would be a smooth launch, even though the game wasn’t as ready as it could be. Certain aspects of the game were set in motion before World of Warcraft launched. And as we all know, WoW definitely changed the face of the MMO map. Since then they’ve spent a lot of time polishing the game."
Link:
www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/68/feature/2143/from/%2Ffeatures%2Ecfm%2Fview%2Flatest
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
QFT...
By their own admission & despite Isildur's ambush gameplay devlog FLS have been either unable or unwilling to reduce group ganking.
I would say "unable".
The only option(*) they really have is to make ALL PvP combat 1v1 or by agreement only.
At that point it ceases to be a game?
* The other options I can think of involve a game redesign and some fundamental changes.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I would say "unable".
The only option(*) they really have is to make ALL PvP combat 1v1 or by agreement only.
At that point it ceases to be a game?
* The other options I can think of involve a game redesign and some fundamental changes.
1v1 & group PvP can & should co-exist with each other, it would not cease to be a game but turn the game in to what it should have been in the first place.
I would say "unable".
The only option(*) they really have is to make ALL PvP combat 1v1 or by agreement only.
At that point it ceases to be a game?
* The other options I can think of involve a game redesign and some fundamental changes.
The best way to fix it is to remove PvE content from PvP. The whole red circle idea is a disaster and should have never been put in the game. Unfortunately they made the entire economic system rely on PvP ship loss to function so they are pretty much stuck unless they add some non-PvP money sinks into the game.
The problem, as I see it, is that FLS assumed all players would enjoy PvP, PvE and econ gameplay equally and as it turned out they were very, very wrong. Players may like all of those types of play but you shouldn't be forced to do one to be able to participate in another. For example, you shouldn't have to PvE grind just to afford PvP and you shouldn't have to risk getting ganked to turn in PvE quests. At this point I don't see how they can turn things around without a game redesign and fundamental changes.
I was a closed beta test as well... forum name Tdog14. Anyways you guys have it right... The biggest problem with PoTBS is the instances, if it was open sea combat the FFA Factions PVP would have been great and the other thing that was wrong with PoTBS was the lack of Depth. Crafting/Building need to be deeper and more fun. Players and guilds should have build and ran the ports that could be fought over.
The game was a great idea, it was alot fun playing in Beta. Alot of smart gamers played PoTBS in closed beta and we had a lot of good tmes but in the end the whinners won the Developers ears and that was all she wrote.
I never played Release and I will never player it. RIP PoTBS first Concept.
Sooner or Later
ya that sounds cool
Latest news from the official forums: GB (DJXeon here) is quitting the game, after being one of the ardent supporters of PotBS:
Isildur said that he was going to make 6v1 ganks a lot less.
Would it be unreasonable to know how & when this will be implemented?
From what i am seeing FLS has made this a clear statement & objective in the ambush gameplay devlog but failed to come up with any workable soloution.
There are solutions which would be acceptable to both legitimate solo & grouped players, the only players that would not be happy about it are the gankers themselves that are sadly ruining the game.
I say legitimate because even if FLS paid me i will not participate in ganking so i'm certainly not going to pay them to be regularly ganked even though it can be avoided.
Never was & never will be someone who will turn tail & run from a fight so i'm not going to start now period.
Unfair fights suck & are NOT fun especially when Potbs is a gankers paradise, the kind of people it attracts suck too.
Isildur knows this & so do FLS so failure to deal with it is not an option.
Rusty should lock up Devco in a room & not let them out until they have ALL agreed to the best workable solution they can come up with & have a plan with timescales on its implementation.
As this topic is in the ask a devs section, i'll take it that with no dev response that FLS do not plan any further changes.
The real reason i'm leaving is due to a feeling of deception & lack of any other constructive end-game content, red circles effect everyones game & have become totally dominated by gank groups.
Sorry, keeping my stuff just in-case FLS decide to honor their commitments so that i can come back.
If the devs managed to chase away one of the most enthusiastic well-wishers for the game, how can they manage to keep ordinary players?
This is all very sad.
Interestingly, I had a little look at Warhammer lately...
They also don't seem to have implemented any sort of population balance (Remember this is also an RvR game?)
I could be wrong about that - because I didn't get much of a look - but if they don't have any balancers we will be able to move much of this thread there in about 6 months.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
One major difference, though: In Warhammer, you probably won't have real-life national affinities giving one side a lopsided advantage because of its number of players. That's what led to there being so many British in PotBS, I suspect.
All Warhammer has to do is to keep all factions extremely well balanced and there shouldn't be any problem. In PotBS, you'd make the British the biggest klutzes in the game in every respect by design, and advertise the disadvantage in 72-point letters, and everybody would still roll British apart from hardcore players who play holding a calculator (though there would be mucho forum whining).
PotBS never had a chance at faction balancing, even with all the perks and mechanics in place.
One major difference, though: In Warhammer, you probably won't have real-life national affinities giving one side a lopsided advantage because of its number of players. That's what led to there being so many British in PotBS, I suspect.
All Warhammer has to do is to keep all factions extremely well balanced and there shouldn't be any problem. In PotBS, you'd make the British the biggest klutzes in the game in every respect by design, and advertise the disadvantage in 72-point letters, and everybody would still roll British apart from hardcore players who play holding a calculator (though there would be mucho forum whining).
PotBS never had a chance at faction balancing, even with all the perks and mechanics in place.
I remember in closed beta the british crying because the spanish won the map twice in a row because we worked as a team, the whole side and produced more ship of the lines then the british.
Faction balance is all fine and good but a faction that works as a team can over come the number disadvantage.
Sooner or Later
One major difference, though: In Warhammer, you probably won't have real-life national affinities giving one side a lopsided advantage because of its number of players. That's what led to there being so many British in PotBS, I suspect.
All Warhammer has to do is to keep all factions extremely well balanced and there shouldn't be any problem. In PotBS, you'd make the British the biggest klutzes in the game in every respect by design, and advertise the disadvantage in 72-point letters, and everybody would still roll British apart from hardcore players who play holding a calculator (though there would be mucho forum whining).
PotBS never had a chance at faction balancing, even with all the perks and mechanics in place.
I remember in closed beta the british crying because the spanish won the map twice in a row because we worked as a team, the whole side and produced more ship of the lines then the british.
Faction balance is all fine and good but a faction that works as a team can over come the number disadvantage.
Not when your faction doesn't even have critical mass, i.e. when you can never find 24 players to fill a port battle at any time of the day (even worse in the case of night flips). From what I've read, Spanish and French on nearly all servers are in that situation right now.
I also remember the first month all too well, when the Brits would use the ecobomb exploit to drop on three French ports all at once, when they knew all too well that the French could only defend one.
That gets old very quickly.
One major difference, though: In Warhammer, you probably won't have real-life national affinities giving one side a lopsided advantage because of its number of players. That's what led to there being so many British in PotBS, I suspect.
All Warhammer has to do is to keep all factions extremely well balanced and there shouldn't be any problem. In PotBS, you'd make the British the biggest klutzes in the game in every respect by design, and advertise the disadvantage in 72-point letters, and everybody would still roll British apart from hardcore players who play holding a calculator (though there would be mucho forum whining).
PotBS never had a chance at faction balancing, even with all the perks and mechanics in place.
I remember in closed beta the british crying because the spanish won the map twice in a row because we worked as a team, the whole side and produced more ship of the lines then the british.
Faction balance is all fine and good but a faction that works as a team can over come the number disadvantage.
Not when your faction doesn't even have critical mass, i.e. when you can never find 24 players to fill a port battle at any time of the day (even worse in the case of night flips). From what I've read, Spanish and French on nearly all servers are in that situation right now.
I also remember the first month all too well, when the Brits would use the ecobomb exploit to drop on three French ports all at once, when they knew all too well that the French could only defend one.
That gets old very quickly.
Yea I never played the released version.. I just did not like the direction the game was going and I was apart of the boarding party that could talk directly to the Developers during CB... They listened to the wrong players and turned what could have been a fun game into something that I did not want to play.
Sooner or Later
They tried to make EVE with pirates, forgetting the fact that they were not the CCP of old (although the new CCP is shite) and most importantly, forgetting the fact that for it to work they needed EVE-like players, which there aren't a whole lot of. Most of them... play EVE.
CCP got away with a whole lot of problems, bugs, bad decisions and whatnot just because they are CCP, we loved their game and fell in love with the niche concept. You can't simply copy that.
That reminds me of an old joke I heard somewhere, in a film or on TV. This actress goes to an audition for a film part. Then a few days later, the casting director tells her that she didn't get the part because they wanted a "Meryl Streep-type actress" for the role. So who did they take for the part? Meryl Streep.
You see that type of mistake everywhere. Developers trying to emulate World of Warcraft hoping they'll get the same success, only realizing too late that the Warcraft players are going to stick with Warcraft as long as it remains playable.
Not to mention that in the case of PotBS, the world has nowhere near enough depth to appeal to EvE players.
Bingo,
Now try and explain that to the overpaid marketing managers who think they know so well, but leave dead businesses and broken dreams in the wake of their incompetence. They don't care, they got massively overpaid for spouting an opinion which turned out to be wrong. They'll just go to a new company and do it allover again.
the biggest thing that got me was i could not make a profit hauling cargo from 1 port to another (like most merchants did back then). to hell with players and the AH as that is too random for me to make a profit, i wanted (and it is so easily implemented) to haul goods that NPC need from port to port getting faction rep and boosting that ports development
sadly (like in LOTRO) your not allowed to craft and make a profit off NPC sales.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads