Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Pirates of the Burning Sea: 2008 Recap
Stradden
Managing EditorMember CommonPosts: 6,696
MMORPG.com's newest writer, Ernest Ross writes this rundown of 2008 in Flying Lab Software's Pirates of the Burning Sea.
2008 has been a wild year for the MMO industry, seeing three highly-anticipated and competitive MMO releases meet with varying degrees success (Pirates of the Burning Sea, Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning, Age of Conan), huge changes for old mainstays (particularly EQ/EQII) and the fall of one game that released with such high expectations after just one year (NCSoft's Tabula Rasa) citing a "failure to meet performance expectations."
Of the three big 2008 releases, two of them were well received in their first few months and then came under bombardment from what seemed like non-stop bad feedback, negative word-of-mouth advertising reverberating down the Internet tubes in every major online gaming community. Indeed, in some circles it's difficult for people to say the words "Funcom" or "Age of Conan" with a straight face and there are still people who seem not to have even heard of PotBS! The third of them, Mythic's WAR, only released in September but, while it's still too early to tell, there have already been signs of disappointment among those who had hoped for the rise of a "WoW-Killer".
)
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Comments
As always the die hard fans will scream and shout, half of it can be blamed on some of those players themselves (new player logs in, ask questions, gets flamed/rebuked for it, another is you get told to FO and go play something else as we dont want you here, and then PvP server gankers/griefers take their toll on new starters on those servers too). easy to go elsewhere (or back to a game you did play beforehand) but left to try something new.
As for word of mouth spreading about how good games are and if they are worth getting, then yes. It spreads really fast thesedays and can make or break games (and companies and even jobs). How good the company is at fixing problems and how quickly and informative they are also helps. Staying quiet and stum really only hastens the wildfire spread of bad publicity. Once the bad starts, it is harder to get rid of.
What is it with the SOE twitch of some people on these forums? Does it have to do with long-standing grievances over Star Wars: Galaxies?
The only thing which SOE can be blamed for in POTBS's case is to have picked it up for publishing. The game is still property of Flying Lab Software, and they alone are to be blamed for any of the above concerns.
The review itself barely scratches the surface. Skirmish and port governance aren't into the game, that much is obvious -- they're conspicuously absent. Unintended consequences were the norm, but the problem is that every attempt to solve them led to yet more unintended consequences. To name a few: Unrest decay turnoff, underdog tools, 6v9 superganks, post-insurance inflation, etc.
The article also failed to mention a few of the particulars surrounding what was going on inside the community: Where is there no mention of "No Crying in the Red Circle" as the developers' ideological statement in the early months? Why only mention skill changes, massive and sometimes inexplicable though they were, when they were for the most part deck chairs being rearranged on the Titanic? Why dedicate all this space to a discussion of avatar combat -- the weakest point of the game almost by unanimous consent -- instead of talking about the best point of the game -- its ship combat, which unfortunately cannot carry a subscription-based game all by itself?
Let's talk of the gankers, the closed society production lines wrecking the economy, the game being shipped (by the developers' own admission) with only one leg of the planned economic tripod in place, the ridiculously expensive bundleboats. Let's talk of the competing visions for the game from the very beginning, the conflict between PvE and PvP, the lack of endgame for nationals as well as pirates, the deficient mechanics (as exemplified by those horrendous red circles), the chronic faction imbalance problem with two characteristically strong factions (British and Pirates) and two perennial losers (French and Spanish), the "magic" skills and the WoW-esque race for gear added later on.
Let's talk of all that. I hope too that the future is bright for this game, because I don't want to be condemned to a lifetime of cartoony fantasy WoW clones, and the historical setting of POTBS appeals to me. But if you want a real breakdown of the problems with this game, this blog entry is much closer to the mark.
This brief summary by Vetarnias is head and shoulders more accurate, and more compelling, than that "review" by a "Guest Writer".
Lately, I've been seeing more and more of these fluffy, ignorantly positive, pieces on PotBS appearing on the web. Methinks the marketing department is working overtime to change the opinion about the game....even if it means glossing over some of the true bits.
Well said Vetarnias. This game had a lot more go wrong with it than just "unintended consequences", including issues with the presale boxes(!). At the very least, call out FLS for being inexperienced at making MMO's, and making some very rookie mistakes, instead of chalking it all up to bad luck.
Although I agree with your opinions I don't agree with your "posture".
Let's think about it this way, is the game better now than 1 year ago? Yes, immensely. Coming from beta I saw many, many bugs get fixed. I saw mechanics that were not working get fixed. Many missions that had problems got fixed. Many skills and ships got rebalanced. Lots and lots of fixing really improved the game.
Then we had a lot of content added, new ships, new eq, new clothes, new missions. We also now have new UI's and new systems like duels and insurance.
Now more recently a whole new avcom system. Is it better now? My opinion is yes, really better than the simplistic old and people having to learn something new (which most people just hate especially if they were good with the old system and now, not so good) is not an excuse to say it sucks.
Also we can still look on the horizon and see more content being added like missions, ships, eq and clothes but also two new systems in the form of skirmish and port governance and maybe some economy improvements.
What all of this shows to me is that FLS is still eagerly behind it's baby and working to improve it. That is very important.
So to come back to my initial remark, i don't agree with your posture. You would be right to be angry and disappointed if the game was dead, if they were not fixing it. So look at the year past, has the game improved? Yes. Look at the future, does it seem like that new stuff is going to improve it further? Yes. Then you should be optimist as should they as should anyone writting a review. Instead, in this WOW world, anything but perfect instantly gets spitted on and it's that behaviour that is really stopping the wow-killers from showing up and nothing else.
PS: In fact I bet most of you are employed by blizzard just to spread bad things about other MMO's to keep their game at the top LOL. I jest, but I wonder if that is really true and they do employ people for that purpose hmmm
I will admit that it's a good thing that FLS remains committed to their game. But does it have another choice? NCSoft had the luxury of pulling the plug on Tabula Rasa -- it wasn't meeting expectations, but the company had other properties to soften the blow, so it was perhaps better to put an end to TR before it got worse and concentrate on their moneymakers.
I don't think FLS has that luxury. Their only other property in their entire history is Rails Across America, a decent strategy game but with completely outdated graphics even when it came out in 2001 (they apparently have another project in the pipeline, perhaps something Flash-related but it's probably in the early stages). So let me put it this way: FLS is out in the middle of the ocean, the ship is taking water, but they have no fleet on which they can transfer (as NCSoft did with TR) if the vessel sinks. Of course they'll remain dedicated to it, with every bucket they've got -- because they have no other choice. When they'll stop improving their game, that will mean the water has reached the main deck.
Unless they're sitting on a cache of money, FLS is fighting for its survival with POTBS, so it's not their dedication or commitment to POTBS which I'm questioning, it's their judgement, instinct, and ability to get the job done. Instead of bailing water, they've drilled new holes in the hull -- consider, for instance, the superganks, which according to the original editorial was just the cause for more unjustified whining. When you remember that the mechanism that led to superganks was implemented as an answer to ganking, weren't players justified in whining? They've often ignored the (admittedly sometimes contradictory) advice of their players to bring in ideas which nobody asked for in the first place. They've refused to take a stand on the PvE versus PvP controversy, which cost them players on both sides, yet they never bothered to even pay lip service to the segment of their players which asked for a FFA PvP server.
I've taken to reading POTBS lead designer Isildur's blog of late, and I'm amazed at how much I agree with practically everything he writes. But as with that now-notorious "Next Big Failure" quote of his that came six months before release, I cannot reconcile his views on gaming as written in his blog with the end product of Pirates of the Burning Sea that was in front of me. I simply cannot. Perhaps Isildur was overruled by Rusty (or others), perhaps he didn't have the team or the budget to make his ideas work in the game (that one leg of the economic tripod would indicate as much). And his going silent on the forums after the release of the game, even before Rusty himself retreated, didn't help matters.
Everything I've seen of late in terms of proposed changes seems more cosmetic than anything else. Fancy clothing? Avatar combat revamp? Okay, the original avcom was often mentioned as the worst part of the game, but it's also very inconsequential. You don't fix it, it really doesn't affect much. Port governance ought to have been Up There in their list of priorities, but it isn't, so I'm thinking either it was a carrot being dangled all along, or that FLS doesn't have a clue about how to bring that in without wrecking other parts of the game.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: POTBS would have worked fine as a single-player game with an automated economy -- it's superior in many respects to Sid Meier's game. But as an MMO, I think it's not going to turn into a success, as the team is too inexperienced to solve the larger problems, which in some cases can't be solved unless the community does it itself (faction imbalance, for starters, by starting new characters in less populous nations), and in other cases can't be solved at all without basically starting over (e.g. the tiny size of the open sea).
I don't care for WoW's polish, because I've grown up in that era when all you needed for fun was stacking blocks of four squares falling with increasing speed from the top of the screen. I'm not looking for WoW's polish -- if anything, it just helps hide the glaring problems with that game -- but at the same time I am tired of being given the excuse that being too poor to afford a WoW-level polish somehow makes bad design choices acceptable. Polish is one thing. A working design is another. I don't want every game to be WoW (which, besides, had 4 years to iron out its problems), but I won't accept a bad game purely because itoffers an alternative to the WoW model.
As for working for Blizzard: I assume you missed an earlier post where I called WoW "ego-stroking instant gratification claptrap"?
I find this interesting, because I think it addresses the issue of fixing a game post-release. I tried PotBS because I got it as a gift. I'd been interested in it early on, but once I heard it was going to have a heavy PvP element my interest dried up (there also seemed to be a lot of dev emphasis on user-generated art submissions, which I personally felt was a lot of wasted energy). Still, once PotBS wound up free in my lap I figured I'd try it. One of the aspects of the game I found lacking was "avatar" combat; buckling a swash just wasn't all that fun, and it was certainly one reason I decided to quit the game. (Conversely, the ship combat was really well done.)
The problem is: I'm gone. I am not the existing playerbase, and it's unlikely that FLS is going to woo me back with the chance that they might've finally gotten it right. I figure I'm not alone; MMO players get entrenched in a game and once there it's hard to pry them away. So while I think they flubbed "avcom" hard, I think you're probably right that it's not worth fixing -- it's too late to worry with that. The people who cared about that are now off playing other games.
I agree with you on the fact that probably FLS has no other choice than to keep at it, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's like a small town shop, they will never be big, they will always have small profit margins but it's a family business and they have been doing it for years and they care about it, unlike big projects like tabula that go bye bye just because it's not giving them tons of money (nice reply by the way, good debate skills you have there).
Of course there are always issues, like ganking or others that result from this or that decision. In all truth, if i put myself in their shoes, i can see how hard it is to fix it all and to please the whole community. I remember isildur saying once that the feedback given in the forums is just a small % of what the whole POTBS population thinks about matters and I agree with it. You often see the hardcore fans, that woud like something to actually change, writting in the forums and those are probably some 100 people.
Does FLS their game is perfect? Of course not. The postings from Isildur that you mention reveals that. Ship combat works great, everyone has fun, you barely need to make changes there. Avcom needed some changes so people could have fun with that as well but it will take some time to mature obviously and perhaps in the future it will be possible to add new areas, new content and new systems around that like having ports where you can actually fight at any given time, things like that.
Skirmish and port governance will be great additions and will make the game even better but that's all, there are things that need improving and my view on that matter is that it takes time.
I will stop cursing FLS when they come out and say "this is perfect and we're not changing anything" and then fans react and still they go "you are wrong this is perfect you are just too blind to see". That has never happened, things are not perfect because they haven't had time to do it yet and if something is not pleasing the majority (and not just a group of 10 out of thousands) then they have always been open to fixing. But things take time and most people are not willing to wait.
My biggest biff with the game right now is the endgame. People with high-level toons build stuff, sell stuff to have money to build more stuff but ultimately they want to buy/make stuff and that stuff is but one thing, ships. So the goal is to buy a ship to go and have fun. Now the fun comes from the pvp on the open sea BUT this is not a FPS shooter where u log, kill some people, log off and its forgotten forever. NO, this is supposed to be an MMO with a permanent world that's why you pay a subscription. But it's not, it's just a big arena for you to log kill some enemies log off and does doesnt produce a good mmorpg where you aim to level your character, to get better gear and to explore new places and experience new adventures either be it by killing some new things or doing some epic quests. Instead with POTBS you have the ports, and you need X to win the round. It's just not enough to produce immersion, it's just like a round of battlefield 2, you get flags (ports) and you win and then a new round starts. Where's the character progression? The adventures? You just need a world to have an mmorpg and potbs is lacking a bit in that respect. But it's still fun to do some economy and to fight in your ship either be it OS pvp or the big port battles and that's what keeps people going, ship combat. Ultimately it is just one more fight instead of a new thing and people leave. As long as you are leveling up it's fine, after that you won't last long.
So in my opinion that's the biggest problem POTBS faces, they can get new players that will reach top level in a month, enjoy the 2nd month up there doing some battles and then slowly play less and less till they cancel because to them it feels they are never going to get anything new cept one more battle. To fix this they need something that is seriously interesting to do at top level and they need it fast.
PS: I assume i missed your earlier post indeed
must have been a fun one
I had high hopes on this game but encountered quite a few disappointments when starting to play it at release.
The reduction of the death penalty by 80% through the introduction of the insurance system being one of the major ones.
Grinding giving more income than using the admittedly very refined production/crafting system. Then why do it?
Constant changes were annoying. Not as much as "having to learn the game anew" as having strategic choices you made being changed retrospectively.
I sitll think it may be the best option for people that want a more mature player base and a more challening game than wow and its clones.
I find this interesting, because I think it addresses the issue of fixing a game post-release. I tried PotBS because I got it as a gift. I'd been interested in it early on, but once I heard it was going to have a heavy PvP element my interest dried up (there also seemed to be a lot of dev emphasis on user-generated art submissions, which I personally felt was a lot of wasted energy). Still, once PotBS wound up free in my lap I figured I'd try it. One of the aspects of the game I found lacking was "avatar" combat; buckling a swash just wasn't all that fun, and it was certainly one reason I decided to quit the game. (Conversely, the ship combat was really well done.)
The problem is: I'm gone. I am not the existing playerbase, and it's unlikely that FLS is going to woo me back with the chance that they might've finally gotten it right. I figure I'm not alone; MMO players get entrenched in a game and once there it's hard to pry them away. So while I think they flubbed "avcom" hard, I think you're probably right that it's not worth fixing -- it's too late to worry with that. The people who cared about that are now off playing other games.
Which raises the question: When you tried POTBS, what did you expect to find? A "Port Royale" economic game based on real supply and demand? A lighthearted pirate romp like Sid Meier's Pirates? EVE Online in the age of sail? World of Warcraft on ships? From your post, I'm guessing that this is the ambiguity of the game (and the expectations of its players) which led to many of the problems that followed.
(Apologies if I borked the quote -- I'm still not savvy about trimming out parts of quotes.)
What I expected based on what I knew at the time of install was "Sid Meier's Pirates, but with people ganking me and the non-ganky bits not being nearly as fun as Sid Meier's Pirates." This was because my expectations were fairly low. Had I not been handed the box I wouldn't have played. I got surprised, though, because I never once engaged in PvP, so the gankfest worry never materialized.
What I wanted was "Sid Meier's Pirates, but with more depth and multiplayer action." To be somewhat specific:
1) Fast-paced action, both in ship-to-ship and melee combat. I mostly got the ship-to-ship combat action I wanted (although a bad wind could make a battle tedious), but the melee combat was drab.
2) An economy that augmented point 1. I found the whole harvesting/crafting aspect of the game dull, more appropriate to a game named, oh, "Traders of the New World" rather than "Pirates of the Burning Sea." The foundation of "you own property that produces goods" just didn't sit well with me. As an endgame prospect, sure, but transporting/pillaging/looting seems more like the economic foundation for a pirate game.
3) Fun exploration. "Go here, traipse inland, discover Olmec ruins or the now-savage survivors of a shipwreck or what-have-you." Now, I'm a fan of how City of Heroes handled instancing, but I think PotBS took that to a terrible extreme -- stand by the port guy (authority? don't recall now), pop in and out of instances, then go to the next town, lather, rinse, repeat.
4) Optional, as-fair-as-you-can-get-for-an-MMO PvP combat. When you have Pirates you have the Plundered, and that setup screams for PvP. From what I read I wouldn't have been pleased by PotBS PvP, but I can't really comment since I never once engaged in PvP.
5) Group-friendly PvE content. I think PotBS provided this somewhat, but I never felt that the game encouraged teaming up all that much. I'm glad it didn't force teaming, but I would've like more blatant reasons to go into an instance with other folks.
Please note that I can't say that the game should meet these desires. EVE Online sounds as fun as lighting my groin on fire, for example, and yet it's a game that's apparently doing quite well and has a loyal playerbase. Clearly not all games should cater to my tastes. I suspect that PotBS would've done better if it had, though.
Well put, Vetarnias. I've tried to express that very idea to a number of different people at various times on various forums, but never put it quite that way. One person said that any future advertising FLS does would do well to very clearly identify the sort of game it is (that is, primarily ship-based PvP/RvR rather than epic PvE) so as to avoid disappointing people who came expecting to find something else.
I'm sorry Curate but I believe you are the wrong demographic for this game. I don't play moto driving games. If I were to try it I would find many things wrong simply because it's not for me.
Add to that the fact that you didn't play the game enough to have a formed opinion.
Don't get me wrong, you're welcomed to the debate, I enjoy debating with anyone I'm just saying your opinion lacks experience and because of that value. This is not derogatory, just stating a fact.
That said I'll take the opportunity to add that, FLS knew this going in, they knew they were not making a wow and because of that it will have a small community because many would just not like the genre. I tried to get several friends hooked and failed everytime. Sure they play mmo's and sure the pirates theme is always appealing but all of them come from wow's and other avatar based games and the idea of you being a ship and the slow pace of the game, it's not for most.
Still, the first say 3 months to 6 months i played the game, everything was so new, everyone was leveling, things were getting fixed and the servers were so full of life that people had loads of fun. I played on the Roberts server by the way. Then slowly many people left and it was obvious that this game doesn't work very well without a server full of people. It got a little better after the free trials but it's still not quite there. Work to be done in that area. They need to come up with ideas to solve such matters. I'm actually eagerly awaiting for the skirm and port governance to come so that after they can start working on the big issues and improving the fun factor. They can do it, they just need time.
Well put, Vetarnias. I've tried to express that very idea to a number of different people at various times on various forums, but never put it quite that way. One person said that any future advertising FLS does would do well to very clearly identify the sort of game it is (that is, primarily ship-based PvP/RvR rather than epic PvE) so as to avoid disappointing people who came expecting to find something else.
Unfortunately, the sort of game POTBS is has never been advertised by FLS, either because they wanted subscribers from every type of player (surprising if we consider "no crying in the red circle"), or because they never quite knew themselves what they wanted to do with their game.
The minute we can explain why FLS attached itself to "no crying" for five months or so before unceremoniously ditching it, we will be able to understand why FLS did or didn't pursue a certain course in the early months.
But the problem is that after getting rid of "no crying", they've been adrift in their attempt to articulate the soul of their game. When even an enthusiast like GB is taking his distances (though I certainly didn't always agree with him, especially that last bit on the POTBS forums about how bundleboats should trump everything else in the game), something is not quite right.
lol GB is a carebear, but I like going back and forth with him. He sent me a PM over there saying he's re-subbed
The 2009 MMOG Developer mantra should be:
You Can't Bullshyt Your Way To Success Anymore.
PotBS could succeed like Eve if they would recognize their core market and cater to that niche.
Suggestion: Have a chat with Joel Billings, ceo of Strategic Simulations Inc (SSI) (who developed awesome strategy and rpg games) about how to make games for your fanbase.
Two points:
1) I agree with the demographic issue: I was the wrong demographic for the game. However, I have to wonder if there is enough of a right demographic for this game to thrive rather than be another Matrix Online hovering on SOE Station Pass life support. As I said at the end of my post, I am definitely the wrong demographic for EVE Online as well, but I'm pretty sure that game's getting along just fine. The broader issues are how PotBS was marketed, as Havohej mentioned, and what preconceived notions the gaming public en masse will bring to "a pirate game." I'm not sure it was marketed poorly; what I knew about it made me think I wouldn't like it (as I said), but I gave it a shake when it was handed to me. It's the latter issue I wonder about. Would the gameplay as it stands had been better served if the game had been plugged as (say) an economic trading game rather than pirates?
2) I played the game long enough to have formed an opinion, in my opinion. I figure I invested about 20 hours into the game, and I feel that if I don't find a game fun after that amount of time I can pipe up about it -- especially if an issue is that people aren't sticking with the game. Wandering back to my entry point into the discussion, I feel that the avcom changes are targeted to people like me who came, didn't like it, and left. They may be inconsequential to the game as it stands, but is the game as it stands viable?
I do believe in the adage "you got to dance with them what brung you," though, and much like the NGE merely alienated much of SWG's remaining playerbase it's possible that the current changes to PotBS will be fruitless because they don't address the issues of the people who've stuck with the game.
Right now it looks like PotBS can go an EVE route, not setting the world aflame but slowly and steadily growing a dedicated and profitable fanbase, or it can go the SWG route, trying to reinvent itself to attract more people and only losing those who still love it. I hope for the former simply because I hate seeing games fail.
Two points:
1) I agree with the demographic issue: I was the wrong demographic for the game. However, I have to wonder if there is enough of a right demographic for this game to thrive rather than be another Matrix Online hovering on SOE Station Pass life support. As I said at the end of my post, I am definitely the wrong demographic for EVE Online as well, but I'm pretty sure that game's getting along just fine. The broader issues are how PotBS was marketed, as Havohej mentioned, and what preconceived notions the gaming public en masse will bring to "a pirate game." I'm not sure it was marketed poorly; I'm not sure it was marketed at all. If you want to blame SOE for something POTBS-related, here's your chance to do it. The game community seems to have developed on word of mouth alone. what I knew about it made me think I wouldn't like it (as I said), but I gave it a shake when it was handed to me. It's the latter issue I wonder about. Would the gameplay as it stands had been better served if the game had been plugged as (say) an economic trading game rather than pirates?
2) I played the game long enough to have formed an opinion, in my opinion. I figure I invested about 20 hours into the game, and I feel that if I don't find a game fun after that amount of time I can pipe up about it -- especially if an issue is that people aren't sticking with the game. I like to hear people's impressions if they haven't played that much, because you get an idea of what newbies/lowbies think. If you said you needed to be level 50 to comment, you'd perhaps miss on all those comments by people being stung by the fact they were told to pass for port battles because they weren't high enough. I played Warhammer Online six days, yet it was plenty of time to see what I thought worked and didn't work with that game. Wandering back to my entry point into the discussion, I feel that the avcom changes are targeted to people like me who came, didn't like it, and left. They may be inconsequential to the game as it stands, but is the game as it stands viable?
I do believe in the adage "you got to dance with them what brung you," though, and much like the NGE merely alienated much of SWG's remaining playerbase it's possible that the current changes to PotBS will be fruitless because they don't address the issues of the people who've stuck with the game.
Right now it looks like PotBS can go an EVE route, not setting the world aflame but slowly and steadily growing a dedicated and profitable fanbase, or it can go the SWG route, trying to reinvent itself to attract more people and only losing those who still love it. I hope for the former simply because I hate seeing games fail. The problem is that we cannot really compare SWG and POTBS in this instance. As far as I know, SWG by the time of NGE was an aging but still popular and profitable game, and Sony, greedy as always, figured out that the best way to get new players was to roll out the red carpet and make everything easy. POTBS, on the other hand -- we don't know, really, how many subscribers they have or used to have, or how many they need to turn a profit. It might well be that they have been operating at a loss for a while, perhaps going back to the "no crying in the red circle" era. In which case it becomes a question of not whether change is needed -- it is -- but what change it should be. The initial EVE-inspired model, in my opinion, did not work in POTBS because the latter lacked the kind of persistent universe one expects of such games (could getting rid of map resets help?) as well as player influence on the world (port governance could solve this). That was the question I always asked: Why didn't EVE players show up, and if they did, why didn't they stay? I think my theory explains it: You can't carve the world map.
However, based on what the game includes, it's easier to go the EVE route than the WoW-on-seas route, even with the popularity of the subject. The quests are too repetitive to sustain interest, and to FLS's credit, they've carried them as far as they could. And there are too many "carebear" (how I hate the term) pirate games out there already. But FLS's crime is to not have made it clear in its design from the start. The red circles in particular are the best evidence of their attempts at reaching a compromise in the PvE-PvP debate.
The entire recap could have been boiled down to this: PotBS = crappy SOE station pass game.
Well to be fair FLS did say several times that they could run all the servers for One full year With out a single sub. ATM they have 5? and are on the Station pass, so I think they will be good for some time to come... will it be enough to finish the game? who knows.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
"The entire recap could have been boiled down to this: PotBS = crappy SOE station pass game."
Cheap shot as SOE had nothing to do with the game other than host it. PotBS is a rather fresh breath of air in need of a better high end that others have commented on "engaging". Those waiting for a finished game for any MMorpg will be waiting for eternity as no online game will ever be finished! Flying Labs does need to make a discission on what crowd they are trying to attract and refine the game toward that crowd. All in all a pleasant game for those who like RvR type games in my opinion.
I never said SOE had anything to do with the game other than host it. Doesn't change the fact that it's still a crappy SOE station pass game.
You see them as having "improved" the game, I see them addressing window trimings and lawn chairs; not the problems with the game that drove the vast majority of initial players away from the game.
Dressing a turd up in tinsel and painting it red still leaves you with a turd...and thats all FLS has done.
The original "review" was beyond pointlessly optimistic, it read like it was written by a damage control specialist in FLS marketing, not a real player. Most of the real problems have been mentioned here and they aren't being touched by FLS.
PS. SOE gets dragged into the discussion because they are the ones keeping PotBS on life support. If the game was a stand alone, unsupported, it would have closed already.
the thing that really ticked me off about this game was going to about 30 ports, talking to some NPC to see how much logs (or furs or something like that) would sell for, writing that down and then finding out how much it would cost to produce.
i wanted to see if i could set myself up in a port, create some kind of raw material (or slightly refined) and transport it to a distant port for a profit (rinse a repeat until i wanted to move into more advanced crafting). reviewing the numbers i found that my reward was the same cost as producing it. In other words my whole, trader/merchant of the sea was crushed.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads