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
The API is, and as far as I know always has been, bugged in that server populations have always read as Light via the API. Currently, two nations on Antigua are at Moderate (Pirate and British).
Invincible (the old Aussie) server has been replaced with Defiant, but not all the Aussies went to Defiant; many went to Antigua or Blackbeard. Rackham has seen an exodus of players to Antigua, Blackbeard and Defiant. Roberts remains active, Defiant seems to be starting off nicely (I know people who transferred from Antigua and Blackbeard to go to Defiant for the more PST-friendly Port Battle schedule).
The free trials have had an enormous impact, as has the winback program through which former players get a free 14-day "get to know us again" sort of trial to log into their old, previously levelled toons and see the changes that've taken place. In addition to this, an affiliate program is nearly ready, which'll encourage more people to post links/banners on their own sites (such as the marquis banner on my blog which has been there free for the last two months).
In short, the game is fine. Population is a lot higher than the API info (which is bugged) suggests, they've recently hired more devs and artists and have their larger development projects on a three-year timescale. FLS is NOT under Sony Online Entertainment's control and they're in it for the long haul. This is the best time to try PotBS for the first time so if you're not a player but the concept looks fun, give it a go; you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Funny thing that, but according to in game counts, the API was usually dead on correct. And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the API provide information directly from within the game? Bugged how?
I'm sorry, but I see little evidence this game is actually doing better. Everyone except the most rabid fanboys agree that all the things that chased people out have remained as they were.
Linna
Bugged means it does not work. If it worked, it wouldn't be 'bugged'. However, it IS bugged, and always has been. It does not report correctly. Like I said, Antigua has
2 nations at Moderate which is quite good considering the state of the game just two months ago! All of you folks who haven't been involved with the game in the last 3 months or more who are posting all of this negative feedback about a game you don't really know anymore are more "rabid" than any fanboi. I guess you're rabid anti-fanbois; you see, it works both ways.
Though, if you're talking about core game design (that is, RvR, risk-based PvP, ship combat) as being things that "chased people out", then yes those core design elements are very much intact and for everyone who doesn't like ship combat or risk of losing their pixels in PvP, there is WoW, WAR, AoC and literally hundreds of other games out there just for you
Bugged means it does not work. If it worked, it wouldn't be 'bugged'. However, it IS bugged, and always has been. It does not report correctly. Like I said, Antigua has
2 nations at Moderate which is quite good considering the state of the game just two months ago! All of you folks who haven't been involved with the game in the last 3 months or more who are posting all of this negative feedback about a game you don't really know anymore are more "rabid" than any fanboi. I guess you're rabid anti-fanbois; you see, it works both ways.
Though, if you're talking about core game design (that is, RvR, risk-based PvP, ship combat) as being things that "chased people out", then yes those core design elements are very much intact and for everyone who doesn't like ship combat or risk of losing their pixels in PvP, there is WoW, WAR, AoC and literally hundreds of other games out there just for you
While I myself am no longer playing, I'm in regular contact with people who still DO play, and I also read the game's forums. And sorry, but they disagree with your optimistic assessment. And really, two nations at moderate is not something to be exited about. High used to be150+ people consecutively on line. They may have stretched that upwards since, but I highly doubt Moderate will be quite as impressive as all that.
As to the API being bugged, I highly doubt it was incorrect all those months, since we actually did IN GAME counts. The ArmEagle site was a truthful reflection of the actual server status. It was interesting how the API was suddenly 'untrustworthy' when nations showed as having no population at certain times. Which was, incidentally, true, as the 18 french left slept or were at work.
And since you do not seem to be educated about what drove people out:
- The guild tools are virtually non-existent. Things that were promised for the first patch after launch were suddenly discarded, like the guild warehouse
- The nation balance is extremely fragile, and on certain servers, like for instance Rackham and Roberts, it was so OUT of balance as to make RvR a joke. The game degenerated into who could gobble up the weakest nation(s) first and win the map. There STILL aren't any tools in place to remedy that. Rackham is a dead server.
- Players have to PVE extensively (as in hours) to be able to enjoy RvR and PVP.
- The economy is a still a mess, plagued by inflation and labor shortages, due to the illadvised and untested addition of Lineship Bundle ship components between beta and live.
- The missions are still repetitive and way too often not suitable for the level you get them at.
- There is no exploration
- There is still no port government (promised for the first weeks after launch)
- There is still no full scale skirmish system (promised for the first months after launch)
- Gear has increasingly become the way to win, in stead of the initial skill based PVP.
- The developers are constantly making large changes in the ship pvp / contention / port battle systems that upset the player base.
- Pirates STILL haven't got a real part to play in RvR
I'm sure you can explain how this is all inconsequential to gaming enjoyment, but these just happen to be the reasons why my entire NATION left, barring a handful who transferred to another server.
Linna
I agree with Linna here. PotBS, a year later, is -- based on what has been posted here and there -- a hodgepodge of broken mechanics, unbalanced factions, and a string of promises the developers have yet to keep.
I'm expecting them to be dropping the ball very shortly. You would have to be blind (or a liar, but I don't think that's the case) to say that PotBS is doing well. All I read about it claims it is struggling, the latest being on this French site a week ago: http://www.gamehope.com/news/19354-mmo-le-cimetiere-des-elephants.html
To translate: "In the meantime, Flying Labs is multiplying marketing effects to turn a profit out of the very costly Pirates of the Burning Sea, whose survival is still not guaranteed..." (Very costly? As far as MMO's go, not really, but FLS, as far as I know, is in no position to just write it off and move on to their next big project.)
Pity. It had so much potential.
You can't do "in game counts." It's not like WoW where you type in a command and it says there's x amount of people online. So I call bull.
As to all the other stuff, you either like the game or you don't. If you don't like loss-free PvP, for example, you're not going to play World of Warcraft. If you don't like having to kill NPCs in order to get points to participate in RvR PvP then you're not going to play PotBS.
Fact of the matter is there isn't much to read about it anywhere at all; you'll forgive me for not being fluent in French, but the article you linked conveyed very clearly the idea that "every game that doesn't have 10 million subscribers is destined to fail." However, it ends with this (translation from some random free website):
Your "based on what has been posted here and there" isn't 100% reliable as most of what I'VE read "posted here and there" has been WoW kids crying about loss of pixels (similar to the negative things people say about EVE), people complaining about empty servers (which DID take them too long to consolidate, but which - with the exception of Rackham - is no longer the case despite all nations showing as light except Brit and Pirate on Antigua), and more of the same as repeated by people who don't have any first-hand knowledge to speak of - or if they do, it dates back to BETA.
Did PotBS release too early? Yes. Did PotBS get tons of negative word-of-mouth? Yes. Was it all deserved at the time? Most of it. Is it all deserved now? Some of it, of course, but that's with any game. There are a lot of misconceptions that people have about Pirates due to the lack of advertising until very recently, the lack of coverage by outlets like this (as compared to coverage of fantasy games like WoW or WAR), and the vociferous outbursts of rabid anti-fans like Linna here who preempt any argument against what they say by saying crap like "only rabid fanboys would disagree with me." God forbid somebody should actually enjoy something other than what they enjoy!
I'm not going to tell you it's the best game in the entire world, but it is not in danger of imminent failure. The repetitive town environments are being overhauled by new blood in the ArtCo department, the AvCom system is being literally replaced with something that, based on all of the feedback - both positive and negative - is more on a par with AvCom in other major MMO games, the Skirmish system is expected to hit testbed shortly after the turn of the year and there've been recent assurances that Port Governance IS a high priority after Skirmish is completed and implemented. And it's only been out for a year. The most similar game on the market right now is EVE, which I played for over a year and which went through similar growing pains during its first three years.
Pirates of the Burning Sea isn't the single best MMO of all time, but it damn sure doesn't deserve all of the poo being flung at it. There are free trials now, try it yourself. I recommend Blackbeard or Antigua as I can say for a fact that they're both active on all nations, especially Antigua which actually has competitive RvR on all four factions (first time that's happened on any server ever!). The game is healthier now than it's ever been - IF it's the type of game you're interested in. It's not for everyone, just like MxO isn't for everyone, EVE isn't for everyone, etc.
Fact of the matter is there isn't much to read about it anywhere at all; you'll forgive me for not being fluent in French, but the article you linked conveyed very clearly the idea that "every game that doesn't have 10 million subscribers is destined to fail." However, it ends with this (translation from some random free website):
Your "based on what has been posted here and there" isn't 100% reliable as most of what I'VE read "posted here and there" has been WoW kids crying about loss of pixels (similar to the negative things people say about EVE), people complaining about empty servers (which DID take them too long to consolidate, but which - with the exception of Rackham - is no longer the case despite all nations showing as light except Brit and Pirate on Antigua), and more of the same as repeated by people who don't have any first-hand knowledge to speak of - or if they do, it dates back to BETA.
Did PotBS release too early? Yes. Did PotBS get tons of negative word-of-mouth? Yes. Was it all deserved at the time? Most of it. Is it all deserved now? Some of it, of course, but that's with any game. There are a lot of misconceptions that people have about Pirates due to the lack of advertising until very recently, the lack of coverage by outlets like this (as compared to coverage of fantasy games like WoW or WAR), and the vociferous outbursts of rabid anti-fans like Linna here who preempt any argument against what they say by saying crap like "only rabid fanboys would disagree with me." God forbid somebody should actually enjoy something other than what they enjoy!
I'm not going to tell you it's the best game in the entire world, but it is not in danger of imminent failure. The repetitive town environments are being overhauled by new blood in the ArtCo department, the AvCom system is being literally replaced with something that, based on all of the feedback - both positive and negative - is more on a par with AvCom in other major MMO games, the Skirmish system is expected to hit testbed shortly after the turn of the year and there've been recent assurances that Port Governance IS a high priority after Skirmish is completed and implemented. And it's only been out for a year. The most similar game on the market right now is EVE, which I played for over a year and which went through similar growing pains during its first three years.
Pirates of the Burning Sea isn't the single best MMO of all time, but it damn sure doesn't deserve all of the poo being flung at it. There are free trials now, try it yourself. I recommend Blackbeard or Antigua as I can say for a fact that they're both active on all nations, especially Antigua which actually has competitive RvR on all four factions (first time that's happened on any server ever!). The game is healthier now than it's ever been - IF it's the type of game you're interested in. It's not for everyone, just like MxO isn't for everyone, EVE isn't for everyone, etc.
It doesn't deserve the poo flung at it? Well, for starters, it's not poo, it's verifyable facts. Go check out the list of unanswered questions in "Ask an FLS developer" for instance. Or the MANY MANY complaints from veterans. Redoing the town art was NEVER a priority, and not something anyone was waiting for. For some towns, like Point a Pitre, it was an outright disaster. It was definitely not one of the reasons why people left. As for the Avcom: I know exactly ONE person who didn't want to play the game because the Avcom was so horrible. Everyone else was there for the ship combat, and didn't care much.
Nice to hear they are going to introduce Skirmish early next year,, and Port Governance soon after. That is however the exact same bull they told us this time last year, in beta.
Getting back to the in-game counts: when there are fewer than 50 players left in your entire nation (which was the case for Spain and France on Rackham), and you know every last one by name, it is VERY easy to do a headcount. The populations on Blackbeard and Roberts may be slightly higher than that after the latest round of transfers, but anyone who dares call this healthy, is delusional. Only this week someone from the new Aussie server complained on the forums that he was the only one in his nation. Yay.
Do you know why you sound like a fanboi? You are constantly implying that everyone who doesn't agree with your assessments needs to go back to WoW. Tip for you: I'm a hardcore PVPer. I brought a second rate to port battles before there was insurance to cushion the weak. I also played the game for almost a year's worth of broken promises and negative changes.
The devs promised a grind free game. It didn't happen. They promised a PVP game. You need to PVE for hours to get PVP. They promised to listen to the playerbase. They only listened to those who told them what they wanted to hear. They promised to fix the nation imbalance. They never did. They promised a skill based PVP game, but increasingly introduced new uber ships of the month and new must-have PVP gear. Reading back in the beta archives alone is enough to make you bang your head against a wall in frustration about all the broken promises. Welcome to WoW sets sail (but without the polish), including the gear grind. All that remains is them raising the level cap.
Linna
I'm actually surprised that they didn't plan on rolling out the gravey train with expansions that added more map, different content, and increased the level cap.
One of my biggest frustrations was that the map was too small, and they used the red circle instances to restrict PvP. A larger map size would have allowed unrestricted (no red circle instances) PvP, and would have needed to seperate out the level 50s from the level 20s. Think along the lines of the current map size being only one starter area (maybe smaller), with plans to release several areas of a similiar size.
With expansions they could have added more areas of the Caribbean and increased the map size, as well as increasing the level cap for those new areas. That would have moved the level 50s into the new content, given the lower levels a place to learn, stretched the map, and seperated out the RvR between expansions/areas. By that I mean, it now becomes possible for level 20s to compete in RvR in a starter area for lower rewards than the level 50s competing in RvR in an expansion area. Victory is determined not at total map level, but at each expansion level.
New players can learn their trade that way, and don't need to be level 50 to participate in RvR.
Overall, for me no matter what changes they make the game is forever borked until they address the map size, and remove stealth sails and speedboats as a way to avoid PvP. Too many mistakes were made with the basic game concepts.
For a PvP game they sure have alot of mechanics to restrict PvP.
I'm actually surprised that they didn't plan on rolling out the gravey train with expansions that added more map, different content, and increased the level cap.
One of my biggest frustrations was that the map was too small, and they used the red circle instances to restrict PvP. A larger map size would have allowed unrestricted (no red circle instances) PvP, and would have needed to seperate out the level 50s from the level 20s. Think along the lines of the current map size being only one starter area (maybe smaller), with plans to release several areas of a similiar size.
With expansions they could have added more areas of the Caribbean and increased the map size, as well as increasing the level cap for those new areas. That would have moved the level 50s into the new content, given the lower levels a place to learn, stretched the map, and seperated out the RvR between expansions/areas. By that I mean, it now becomes possible for level 20s to compete in RvR in a starter area for lower rewards than the level 50s competing in RvR in an expansion area. Victory is determined not at total map level, but at each expansion level.
New players can learn their trade that way, and don't need to be level 50 to participate in RvR.
Overall, for me no matter what changes they make the game is forever borked until they address the map size, and remove stealth sails and speedboats as a way to avoid PvP. Too many mistakes were made with the basic game concepts.
For a PvP game they sure have alot of mechanics to restrict PvP.
Ah yes, another big one I forgot: the futility of even TRYING to participate in PVP before you're level capped, and even then it will be frustrating because you wont have all the good gear yet.
Linna
Low population? Rackham, 'nuff said.
Over two thirds of the "Unanswered Questions" in the thread you mentioned either were answered before that thread was posted or were answered IN that thread by the producer (Misha) and other devs (I think Snap and Rusty, the CEO, also posted in that thread with answers, can't be bothered to go check right now - it's 6am!).
You make it sound like PotBS is the only game with broken promises and things that haven't been implemented yet that should already have been in the game; it isn't. Nor will it be the last.
Repetitive town backdrops may not have made people leave, but they have definitely contributed to people not staying after a 14-day trial. As did the clunky, un-polished AvCom model the game launched with. Rusty all but said it right out on the forum two days ago that a lot of what's been going on in the last three months has been spurred on by the exit surveys taken when people leave.
The new Aussie server (Defiant) suffered from a broken transfer system which hindered a large number of the players trying to get there. I don't know first hand if it's fixed or not, but I know I haven't seen Defiant players complaining about the population like they were that first week.
Nation imbalance is a matter of what side players choose to roll on, FLS can't fix that any more than they can completely remove ganking. Let's be fair and treat with common sense.
Port governance in a game with a map that resets isn't a simple thing; I'd go as far as to say it's more complex than EVE's model where the map does not reset. Their economic model was designed with it in mind, though, and nobody can deny that PotBS released too early - I already agreed with that. Let's be fair and treat with common sense.
You sound like the sort of player that inspired this post. What's more, you sound like you're bitter over not only not having gotten your Port Governance and Skirmish but your particular flavor of OPness probably got nerfed (thus you citing "negative changes").
Of course, the state of the PotBS forum is not helped by having EX players like yourself cluttering it up non-constructive venom but despite your best efforts, we continue to get new players asking questions on Nation chat which means they completed their trial and enjoyed the game enough to pay and upgrade to full subscriptions (trials can't talk on Nation).
I get that you had a bad experience, I get that a lot of things that were promised in BETA haven't shown up yet (the difference between Skirmish then and Skirmish now is that now it's actually in production). I get that you don't agree with the importance of cosmetic changes or rebuilding the AvCom model. Yours is not the only PotBS experience. Yours are not the only opinions regarding AvCom and town models. While you're entitled to your opinions, nobody gets to say that another person's opinions are somehow less valid just because they are not in agreement with one's own.
I can't help notice the irony, though... if WAR is so much better a game, as many ex-PotBS players have said, why are so many WAR players spending so much time and energy posting about PotBS on both the official forum and external forums like this one?
Nonsense and rubbish; L2P.
EDIT: Welp, forum rules recently been ammended: 28.)Respect the Linna
Maybe you don't need to L2P, but if that's the case, then you should be the last person to say that you can't PvP until max level.
Low population? Rackham, 'nuff said.
Over two thirds of the "Unanswered Questions" in the thread you mentioned either were answered before that thread was posted or were answered IN that thread by the producer (Misha) and other devs (I think Snap and Rusty, the CEO, also posted in that thread with answers, can't be bothered to go check right now - it's 6am!).
You make it sound like PotBS is the only game with broken promises and things that haven't been implemented yet that should already have been in the game; it isn't. Nor will it be the last.
Repetitive town backdrops may not have made people leave, but they have definitely contributed to people not staying after a 14-day trial. As did the clunky, un-polished AvCom model the game launched with. Rusty all but said it right out on the forum two days ago that a lot of what's been going on in the last three months has been spurred on by the exit surveys taken when people leave.
The new Aussie server (Defiant) suffered from a broken transfer system which hindered a large number of the players trying to get there. I don't know first hand if it's fixed or not, but I know I haven't seen Defiant players complaining about the population like they were that first week.
Nation imbalance is a matter of what side players choose to roll on, FLS can't fix that any more than they can completely remove ganking. Let's be fair and treat with common sense.
Port governance in a game with a map that resets isn't a simple thing; I'd go as far as to say it's more complex than EVE's model where the map does not reset. Their economic model was designed with it in mind, though, and nobody can deny that PotBS released too early - I already agreed with that. Let's be fair and treat with common sense.
You sound like the sort of player that inspired this post. What's more, you sound like you're bitter over not only not having gotten your Port Governance and Skirmish but your particular flavor of OPness probably got nerfed (thus you citing "negative changes").
Of course, the state of the PotBS forum is not helped by having EX players like yourself cluttering it up non-constructive venom but despite your best efforts, we continue to get new players asking questions on Nation chat which means they completed their trial and enjoyed the game enough to pay and upgrade to full subscriptions (trials can't talk on Nation).
I get that you had a bad experience, I get that a lot of things that were promised in BETA haven't shown up yet (the difference between Skirmish then and Skirmish now is that now it's actually in production). I get that you don't agree with the importance of cosmetic changes or rebuilding the AvCom model. Yours is not the only PotBS experience. Yours are not the only opinions regarding AvCom and town models. While you're entitled to your opinions, nobody gets to say that another person's opinions are somehow less valid just because they are not in agreement with one's own.
I can't help notice the irony, though... if WAR is so much better a game, as many ex-PotBS players have said, why are so many WAR players spending so much time and energy posting about PotBS on both the official forum and external forums like this one?
See, there you go with the assumptions again. Who said anything about being OP, or even wanting to be? I'm just an average PVPer, and I acknowledge the fact. It's people like YOU who immediately jump to conclusions like 'you should play wow if you don't like the risk of loss' and (when told that isn't exactly the problem) 'you are bitter because your OP-ness was taken away'. No, I am bitter because I supported this game wholeheartedly, enticed my entire guild to play, only to see everyone badly disappointed and leaving. And I am bitter because I had direct correspondence with Rusty about the problems we were having, was told 'we're working on it, it's a priority' only to see MONTHS go by without anything happening to the stuff that was driving people away, while fluff was added that no one had asked for and changes were made everyone told the devs would make it worse, which then had to reversed, changed etc. And the problems I corresponded about STILL haven't been addressed.
As to it only being just my opinion: weren't you the one complaining EVERYONE is only saying negative things about the game. Did it ever occur to you that maybe we have good reasons? That we in fact say the same as many (if not most) of those still playing? And that we are, in fact, the majority of players out there?
Yes, you are entitled to your opinions. But the way you go about it, immediately attacking those who disagree, shouts 'fanboi' to me.
Linna
Bugged means it does not work. If it worked, it wouldn't be 'bugged'. However, it IS bugged, and always has been. It does not report correctly. Like I said, Antigua has
2 nations at Moderate which is quite good considering the state of the game just two months ago! All of you folks who haven't been involved with the game in the last 3 months or more who are posting all of this negative feedback about a game you don't really know anymore are more "rabid" than any fanboi. I guess you're rabid anti-fanbois; you see, it works both ways.
Though, if you're talking about core game design (that is, RvR, risk-based PvP, ship combat) as being things that "chased people out", then yes those core design elements are very much intact and for everyone who doesn't like ship combat or risk of losing their pixels in PvP, there is WoW, WAR, AoC and literally hundreds of other games out there just for you
Ah, here we go yet again. What is it? The end of the year time to bait new and potentially returning players with fabled new features, increase in population and that special feel that sets this game apart from the others?
So let us start with new features, there are none above and beyond few tweaks and eye candy. Last three months bought no significant changes and the game is a mess as it was before. The only difference being the fact that current mess is of a slightly different hue than the original mess.
Increase in population? First FLS adjusted the population thresholds toshow moderate in the past although the population was falling. What is medium these days anyways? 20? 50? 100? Probably not a hundred, at any rate the population is far from healthy and FLS can code so its display shows 5 players as very heavy. And yes, I actually remember very heavy factions durign the days when half of all factions on a dozen servers were moderate or above. Now, almost a year later, the game has 3 dead and 1 semi dead server. Hardly an improvement.
And that brings us to that special feel of POTBS, the feature that was a cornerston of the game at launch. POTBS has a poorly made and unblanced RvR, especially if one compares with older RvR games. Risk-based PvP is dead since the intorduction of ship insurance and no changes from that time made any difference. And let us not even go into badly designed economy, poor PvE, simplistic AI, lack of exploration and occasional performance problems.
The notion of superority to WoW & co is rather lost if one remembers how WoWs cartoonish characters have a certain charm that POTBS simply lacks by trying to appear realistic. Not to mention that with stuns, self heals, invulnerability and whatnot playing some classes in POTBS comes damn close to playing a WoW paladin.
I am no fan of WoW but WoW does what it does well, POTBS does what it does poorly and there lies the difference.
Real simple, SoE
-----------------------
...I'm in your panties
Yes, you advocated that point over six months ago. I would have agreed then and I do agree now. POTBS is in no shape to chrage the same fee as other so-called tripe A games. Mainly because it lacks features, polish, content, playability and overal appeal.
1) It's a pirate game
2) It focuses on naval battles rather than on land action.
3) Having SoE as a publisher doesn't help, some people might have been put off by it.
Although I believe that if they corrected point number 2, the game would have been much more successful.
Fact of the matter is there isn't much to read about it anywhere at all; (Isn't that a telling indication that there is a serious problem with the visibility of the game? I can understand that they don't have the budget for a full-scale promotional effort, especially since SOE and Bigpond in Australia all but dropped the ball on this one. But we're discussing this nearly a year after release, which was just the time it took for NCSoft to pull the plug on Tabula Rasa. It's probably too little too late for PotBS -- wasn't there a promotional campaign being planned? Did you see any trace of it? Haven't they been talking about the Winback plan for quite a while now? Where is it? The only way of attracting attention was word of mouth; it's not exactly positive, and I could post more and more links if you want.) you'll forgive me for not being fluent in French, but the article you linked conveyed very clearly the idea that "every game that doesn't have 10 million subscribers is destined to fail." (Almost every article I see where PotBS is referenced makes the inevitable comparison with WoW. And I hate this. Just consider this article: "Telstra's 100,000 free copies of Pirates of the Burning Sea wasn't enough to help guarantee success of the ambitious MMO, but it was in good company, with the World of Warcraft juggernaut continuing to dominate the scene throughout 2008." I'm all for niche games, which PotBS undeniably is. However, we have an example of a successful niche game -- EvE Online -- whereas I am not sure we can say that PotBS is a success even as a niche game (besides, can we really be talking about "niche" if you consider the number of pirate games out there, both single-player and MMO's?). As I said, I, too, am annoyed by the inevitable comparisons to WoW. A game trying to obtain a share of the WoW demographic is destined to failure, as I suspect a good chunk of that demographic considers WoW to be little more than a single-player game played in multiplayer instead of against the computer. You could see WoW's influences all over Age of Conan (Gaute's steak notwithstanding) and even Warhammer, which took a reductio ad absurdum approach to WoW's superficial economy). I, too, want something different. I will give FLS credit for trying to eschew the WoW model, but that will not stop me from saying that they have failed in their attempt because of their lack of a clear vision.) However, it ends with this (translation from some random free website):
(The automated translation is decent enough, but to me this comment definitely sounded sarcastic, especially so in the original French. Even the comments in response to the main post are anti-WoW for the most part.) Your "based on what has been posted here and there" isn't 100% reliable as most of what I'VE read "posted here and there" has been WoW kids crying about loss of pixels (similar to the negative things people say about EVE) (It's a game. Complain all you want about "WoW kids crying about loss of pixels", if they don't like the game, they stop playing. There's more to this than that, however: I have seen people on the PotBS forums -- people who would call themselves "hardcore", and some of whom, by the way, have left for Warhammer as soon as beta started -- say that the entire "carebear mentality" had to be stamped out of the game, and who would take great pride in forcing the "unworthies" to leave the game. Commercially, it's a short road to suicide. I never played EvE, but I do have my reservations about that game, some of which are ideological in nature, but others that have to do with CCP always seeming to me as not being quite on the level, as confirmed by that "Band of Developers" incident.) , people complaining about empty servers (which DID take them too long to consolidate, but which - with the exception of Rackham - is no longer the case despite all nations showing as light except Brit and Pirate on Antigua), and more of the same as repeated by people who don't have any first-hand knowledge to speak of - or if they do, it dates back to BETA.
Did PotBS release too early? Yes. (We can speculate as to why they did, especially since it has been said that SOE did not force them to release. Maybe they just wanted to capitalize on the "Pirates of the Caribbean" comet before its tail disappeared; maybe they just wanted to dispel concerns of Vaporware, which Darkfall, by the way, really ought to pay attention to. But considering the year that followed, I am not sure that more time would have made any difference, since their track record post-release has been erratic at best. The major problems of the game -- faction imbalanced, the borked economy, etc. -- would not have been solved with more time.) Did PotBS get tons of negative word-of-mouth? Yes. Was it all deserved at the time? Most of it. Is it all deserved now? Some of it, of course, but that's with any game. There are a lot of misconceptions that people have about Pirates due to the lack of advertising until very recently, the lack of coverage by outlets like this (as compared to coverage of fantasy games like WoW or WAR) (It does have its occasional articles about PotBS, but not particularly more or less than other gaming websites. However, there has always been this impression that "WoW carebears" were running these forums, and I do remember one incident where one of the beta testers posted here despite the NDA, which got a response from Isildur. That should be enough of an indication that FLS staffers used to read these forums; I'm not sure they would be willing to acknowledge that at this point -- but then, I'm neither with FLS nor with MMORPG.com to know for sure.), and the vociferous outbursts of rabid anti-fans like Linna here who preempt any argument against what they say by saying crap like "only rabid fanboys would disagree with me." God forbid somebody should actually enjoy something other than what they enjoy! (Enjoy what you want. Just don't force me to agree with you.)
I'm not going to tell you it's the best game in the entire world, but it is not in danger of imminent failure. (Only FLS knows for sure. However, if it is not in danger of imminent failure, they should definitely do a PR effort, the first step of which should be to re-establish the exchange of ideas on the official forums. Even Rusty has been MIA for a while now. It just doesn't look good.) The repetitive town environments are being overhauled by new blood in the ArtCo department, the AvCom system is being literally replaced with something that, based on all of the feedback - both positive and negative - is more on a par with AvCom in other major MMO games, the Skirmish system is expected to hit testbed shortly after the turn of the year and there've been recent assurances that Port Governance IS a high priority (Port governance, to me, has always been a priority. However, the developers' vague references to it during the months after release convinced me it was just another carrot being dangled in front of the players. Furthermore, I have lost any confidence in the developers' ability to implement it.) after Skirmish is completed and implemented. And it's only been out for a year. The most similar game on the market right now is EVE, which I played for over a year and which went through similar growing pains during its first three years. (If this game targets EvE players, why didn't they show up in the early months? And if they did show up -- and I do have some evidence that at least some tried it -- why didn't they stay? Remember: These were the days of "No crying in the red circle", before the alleged "carebearization" of the game. I think I can provide the answer: There is no genuine political power in this game. You can't stake out a territory, bottle up trade, or exercise any sort of leadership which ambitious guild leaders usually like to do. You can flip ports -- which flip back. Rinse and repeat. Grind for PvP. Backseat economy requiring no commitment, making sure everyone and his uncle can craft their day's worth in a matter of minutes. And furthermore, I think there is enough evidence out there to suggest that FLS never quite knew what it wanted its game to be. For all the "no crying" grandstanding, Isildur's quote about the "Next Big Failure" speaks louder.)
Pirates of the Burning Sea isn't the single best MMO of all time, but it damn sure doesn't deserve all of the poo being flung at it. There are free trials now, try it yourself. I recommend Blackbeard or Antigua as I can say for a fact that they're both active on all nations, especially Antigua which actually has competitive RvR on all four factions (first time that's happened on any server ever!). The game is healthier now than it's ever been - IF it's the type of game you're interested in. It's not for everyone, just like MxO isn't for everyone, EVE isn't for everyone, etc. (Then we need to ask the question: Who is the targeted player demographic in the case of PotBS? It's DrewC's "not fair in your favor" versus Isildur's "the people who want to gank". FLS never seemed to know, and players just filled in the blanks. Also, you "hardcore" players need to learn one thing: Games will not revolve around players' every whim unless their developers can make truckloads of money out of it. WoW is notorious for shamelessly catering to the ego of its players, but there has always been tension between heavy players and casuals, and it knows the casual market is its bread and butter. Instant gratification has always been its stock in trade, but heavy players don't want to see Blizzard give casuals a free ride. Blizzard, however, knows where its money is -- casual PvE players. The PvP is so gear-based and level-based that it's a joke. Some friends convinced me to play on a PvP server, and it's painful to see how there is no skill involved whatsoever. I'm in my mid-thirties now and I've been ganked by level-60s and up where I had not a single chance of winning -- and where there's nothing at stake to even offer an excuse for the ganker to behave the way he did. However, PotBS follows the same damn model -- the same damn model Shadowbane and every other game out there follows, even hardcore favourites: high levels have such an advantage in battle that the low levels are made redundant. To go back to the subject, however: The problem with "hardcore" players, as is widely known in the industry, is that they are fickle. Hardcore games are fine as long as they win. When they lose, they blame the game and move on (see: Shadowbane's exploits). When they win, they enjoy the situation for a while, then it gets boring when the losers have quit, so they themselves move on. Developers who rely on that demographic, as PotBS has learned, are in for a hard time. EvE is the exception, apparently, and the reason for this that gets mentioned all the time is the vastness of space. You want a game that's not a WoW clone? Learn to stick to one when you're offered one, and learn how to not wreck it for the studio that released it. Right now, as far as the potential for success of a hardcore game is concerned, EvE is cited as the exception rather than the rule... You guys are seen as too unruly to be trusted, and when your ilk brags about driving people from games, what message do you think that sends to investors?
Advice just as easily applied to you, Linna, or any of the other haters insisting on what a "terrible game" PotBS is. You can say what you want about it, you can make posts flaming me more than the game (Linna), have a blast with it. It's not going to change the fact that a lot of people do enjoy the game with plenty more subscribing every week - and that with limited advertising.
@Linna:
You've said in two posts now that I attacked someone; I haven't attacked anyone. I responded to your 'rabid fanboi' attack by explaining why you, and others, sound just as rabid but at the other end of the spectrum. Throw all the stones you want, it doesn't make your argument any more or less convincing. One thing for you and anyone else who still has any involvement or interest in PotBS improving (which you obviously do, Broom): shitpoasting about it on every forum you can find isn't going to help the "population crisis" you complain about (which doesn't exist on Blackbeard or Antigua - I don't play on the other servers, so won't comment for certain there).
As for me, the 2 servers I play on aren't suffering from population woes at all, so I'm less concerned about trying to bait new people in than I am about showing people the other side of your "this game sucks QQ" coin; that is, that the game does not suck and is actually quite fun to play!
Advice just as easily applied to you, Linna, or any of the other haters insisting on what a "terrible game" PotBS is. You can say what you want about it, you can make posts flaming me more than the game (Linna), have a blast with it. It's not going to change the fact that a lot of people do enjoy the game with plenty more subscribing every week - and that with limited advertising.
@Linna:
You've said in two posts now that I attacked someone; I haven't attacked anyone. I responded to your 'rabid fanboi' attack by explaining why you, and others, sound just as rabid but at the other end of the spectrum. Throw all the stones you want, it doesn't make your argument any more or less convincing. One thing for you and anyone else who still has any involvement or interest in PotBS improving (which you obviously do, Broom): shitpoasting about it on every forum you can find isn't going to help the "population crisis" you complain about (which doesn't exist on Blackbeard or Antigua - I don't play on the other servers, so won't comment for certain there).
As for me, the 2 servers I play on aren't suffering from population woes at all, so I'm less concerned about trying to bait new people in than I am about showing people the other side of your "this game sucks QQ" coin; that is, that the game does not suck and is actually quite fun to play!
If the shoe fits, wear it? What I said, was that only the most rabid fanbois deny the game has problems. That is a generic comment. You could have replied by just admitting the game has problems, but that in your view, they are surmountable or will be fixed - which they won't be, sadly, most aren't even on the agenda. In stead, you started playing the 'go back to WoW' card and the 'carebear' card. And when informed that I'm anything BUT a carebear and not interested in WoW in the slightest, you started with the 'you are just upset because they nerfed your uberness' crap. Again, an attack.
Newsflash kiddo: attacks like that are not the mark of a player who is trying to see both sides, they indicate that you ARE a fanboi. You try to disqualify what your opponents say by implying they are just whiners, in stead of actually discussing what negatives they bring to the table.
I beg to differ about the population woes, by the way. But then again, I know what signs to look for, and I actually know people in all the factions on both those servers.
Linna
Nonsense and rubbish; L2P.
EDIT: Welp, forum rules recently been ammended: 28.)Respect the Linna
Maybe you don't need to L2P, but if that's the case, then you should be the last person to say that you can't PvP until max level.
Garbad was also one of the MOST experienced players on all servers, having logged quite alot of hours since beta. Most players can't do that, they have jobs, families, and other constraints on their time.
For these average players, which Garbad definately was not, PvP opportunities were limited under 50 by game mechanics. The starter areas, France around Florida, Spain around southern Mexico, and Britain along the western coast of S America, lack of geographic proximity were a hinderance to starting players learning the ropes. I have said, and I will say again, this is a PVP game with game mechanics that constantly throw up barriers to PvP. It is dysfunctional.
Had the starting areas been grouped tighter, allowing for level 10s in fallback ships to go out and learn to PvP, players could have built up the experience necessary to take on people like Garbad. Replacement of a fallback ship is free, all they would be out is the fittings had there been an area for begininers. Think of it as a "skirmish area system" if you will. A practice field for game day. And, had the map been properly thought out, it would have been in game since day one. Unless, of course, FLS was more concerned that players would complain, "but I don't want to PvP, I want to run quests", and chose to seperate out the starter areas.
As it stood, players PvE'd their way up the ladder, experiencing very limited PvP, until they could afford those big, bright, pretty ships. They then bought their failboats and set sail thinking gear was all that was necessary to win. And against another inexperienced player in another big, bright, and pretty ship they stood a chance. But they never had that confidence in their skills, so more than likely, they grouped with their buddies failboats, and ganked a loan newb for self esteem, using tactics such as zoning into a PvP encounter from a port. Or, they leveled to 50, then went out and PvP'd against a level 20. They used Garbad's writeup to convince themselves that the level 20 had a chance. They fooled themselves into thinking that this was what PvP was about.
Against a player of Garbad's extensive experience, these type of players never stood a chance.
Don't use Garbad as an example of what the average player can do, Garbad was not the average player. Garbad could, and did, win over the average player regardless of gear. It's one thing to read about how Garbad did it, it's another thing to practice it.
It is a reason a sports team doesn't sit around the locker room reading the theory of how to play the game, but gets out on the practice field to learn how to execute...execute....execute.
This game never allowed for a practice area, which is why they talk a skirmish system now. But the skirmish system could always have been there had they properly thought through their map beforehand.
The there wouldn't have been a need to introduce "stealth sails and speedboats" mechanics to avoid PvP.
The map borked the PvP game.
Nonsense and rubbish; L2P.
EDIT: Welp, forum rules recently been ammended: 28.)Respect the Linna
Maybe you don't need to L2P, but if that's the case, then you should be the last person to say that you can't PvP until max level.
Garbad was also one of the MOST experienced players on all servers, having logged quite alot of hours since beta. Most players can't do that, they have jobs, families, and other constraints on their time.
For these average players, which Garbad definately was not, PvP opportunities were limited under 50 by game mechanics. The starter areas, France around Florida, Spain around southern Mexico, and Britain along the western coast of S America, lack of geographic proximity were a hinderance to starting players learning the ropes. I have said, and I will say again, this is a PVP game with game mechanics that constantly throws up barriers to PvP. It is dysfunctional.
Had the starting areas been grouped tighter, allowing for level 10s in fallback ships to go out and learn to PvP, players could have built up the experience necessary to take on people like Garbad. Replacement of a fallback ship is free, all they would be out is the fittings had there been an area for begininers. Think of it as a "skirmish area system" if you will. A practice field for game day.
As it stood, players PvE'd their way up the ladder, experiencing very limited PvP, until they could afford those big, bright, pretty ships. They then bought their failboats and set sail thinking gear was all that was necessary to win. And against another inexperienced player in another big, bright, and pretty ship they stood a chance. But they never had that confidence in their skills, so more than likely, they grouped with their buddies failboats, and ganked a loan newb for self esteem, using tactics such as zoning into a PvP encounter from a port. Or, they leveled to 50, then went out and PvP'd against a level 20. They used Garbad's writeup to convince themselves that the level 20 had a chance. They fooled themselves into thinking that this was what PvP was about.
Against a player of Garbad's extensive experience, these type of players never stood a chance.
Don't use Garbad as an example of what the average player can do, Garbad was not the average player. Garbad could, and did, win over the average player regardless of gear. It's one thing to read about how Garbad did it, it's another thing to practice it.
It is a reason a sports team doesn't sit around the locker room ready the theory of how to play the game, but gets out on the practice field to learn how to execute...execute....execute.
I agree. I know Garbad personally, and despite the fact he likes to brag, he really IS a very good PVPer. And he CAN pull off stunts no normal player could. He's one of the game gurus, one of the people who LIVED in closed beta. He is not a good example of what regular players can do.
Like I said, I'm an average PVPer, for Rackham anyway. But me and one other could take out level 50 ships with 2 MC cutters. It took us 3 MC cutters to take out a Valiant. Why? Because we were all closed beta players. We had the experience those new guys do and did not have, and can never catch up with.
So yes, I repeat and amend: you don't stand a chance in PVP until you're max level, unless you're called e.g. Garbad or Brigham Icehart and have 18+ months non-stop prior PVP experience.
Linna
It is very early morning here in the US, I forget that some posters, like yourself, are enjoying the afternoon. I always think I have plenty of early morning time before people wake up to edit my posts.
You caught me before I finished my edits. My brain is still fuzzy from waking up, and, as the coffeee hits, I clean up the concepts I expound on in my post. So, there are a few changes, but not in the point you and I agree on.
I played French on Rackham, and fought against Garbad. His was always a very expensive experience. I really wish I could have had the opportunity to go one on one with him over and over and over again in fallback ships. He may have gotten bored, but I would have learned alot. However, not only did he fight well, he thought about game mechanics, and about map strategy. Personally, I believe he lived, ate, drank, breathed, and dreamed the game.
It was like a love for him, it really is too bad it couldn't be that for everyone. It's not the players fault, too many things were poorly thought out when the game was on the drawing board, too many of the basic foundations are dysfunctional.
It is FLS first MMORPG, and there was no practice field. They read the theory, but didn't know how to execute. They never realized that, and institutionalized that same problem in their game.
Ah yes. I've just seen your PotBS forum registration date Havojeh (september 2008), and it explains much.
Could you please sit down and read up on the history of the game? Are you aware it started with 3x as many servers as there are left? And as you should know, the health status of at least 2 of those remaining servers (and I suspect 4 out of 5) is extremely shaky.
Also, are you aware that the ingame /whocount was taken out when the population started to plummet? And that the population API 'mysteriously' became unavailable/bugged when the population plummeted even further?
And those are just two of the reasons why people are so sceptical about the game, and so angry at FLS for STILL not adressing the real reasons why the population plummeted. And despite what Rusty now claims, the Avcom was NEVER on the priority list for those quitting.
Linna
It is very early morning here in the US, I forget that some posters, like yourself, are enjoying the afternoon. I always think I have plenty of early morning time before people wake up to edit my posts.
You caught me before I finished my edits. My brain is still fuzzy from waking up, and, as the coffeee hits, I clean up the concepts I expound on in my post. So, there are a few changes, but not in the point you and I agree on.
I played French on Rackham, and fought against Garbad. His was always a very expensive experience. I really wish I could have had the opportunity to go one on one with him over and over and over again in fallback ships. He may have gotten bored, but I would have learned alot. However, not only did he fight well, he thought about game mechanics, and about map strategy. Personally, I believe he lived, ate, drank, breathed, and dreamed the game.
It was like a love for him, it really is too bad it couldn't be that for everyone. It's not the players fault, too many things were poorly thought out when the game was on the drawing board, too many of the basic foundations are dysfunctional.
It is FLS first MMORPG, and there was no practice field. They read the theory, but didn't know how to execute. They never realized that, and institutionalized that same problem in their game.
Well, you may remember Isildurs post about the players looking for the next big gank, back in beta? They did know about the inherent problems. They only started adressing it over half a year later, and when they did, they made it even worse (reverse gank for the win). They were also warned about the population balance back in beta, but they chose to ignore it. And when it proved to be an even bigger problem than thought, they outright refused to help the failing nations. Entire British guilds asked the devs to please help them to somehow transfer their toons to the French or Spanish nation, but it was refused. All they had to do was dedicate a little bit of CSR time to it, they DID have the tools for insta-levelling characters. But FLS said no, time and time and time again.
Another HUGE mistake FLS made, and are still making, is that they simply do not understand what guilds are, and how they function. Just look at their outright refusal to allow guilds to cooperate on building LSBs, while at the same time emphasizing these LSBs should be a national effort. This is one of the things that drove many out in frustration. Having to stand on the docks waiting for trade partners was just too much like work. All we asked was a guild warehouse, guild auction house or even just the ability to drop off stuff for people who were off line, to make the economy a bit more fun and a lot less boredom.
They also, very obviously, don't understand the loyalties that bind players to guilds and nations. When I left, my guild left. It had a chain effect, and I think it severely reduced Rackham's viability.
Linna
Haven't done that. You like putting words in my mouth, you post my next post for me, mmkay?
And as I already pointed out, I didn't get into examining your possible motivations for being rabidly (again, using your word) anti-PotBS until you threw the fanboi nonsense on the table. You made the statement that anyone who disagrees with you must be "delusional." Just because they disagree with your opinion that the problems that exist with the game can't be fixed or that they aren't being worked on to begin with? If you really believe that sort of garbage, then who's delusional? I mean, good Lord, talk about "disqualifying what your opponent says." Who's attacking whom? What's that about shoes fitting?
Seriously, trying really hard to respect you but you're not making it easy with your position of "anyone who says other than what I say is a delusional moron."