Wow! Y'all have brought up a lot of related problems just based on me poking the elephant in the room of obvious pay to progress design damaging their potential community size and player retention. While I think some of these other subjects are definitely related, I think that any proposed fixes to those would be disrupted by any fix to this problem, and it's also interesting to examine the impact this design decision has in creating or contributing to some of those problems. XP/credit systems would be less of a concern if their insufficiencies weren't gating the lion's share of content and depth in this game. I get that the philosophy there is likely 'why would they pay for the milk if they get the cow for free', but as it stands even if I were to pay I'd have to do significant work to get to the core of the game where its mechanics and loadout depth can actually shine.
This testimonial right here, this is why I'm reticent to commit any more of my time to a game that gives so little while demanding so much:
Enterprise_NC1701#2026 posted (#post-217155) said:
Without elite it took me one year straight getting from the t4 jutland to the t5 monarch. With elite I made it from t4 vindicta to t5 brutus (need to buy the 7 mods that are left) withing one week.
Two weeks of elite: 1 tier 3 (gravis) finished, t4 obtained, 1 tier three finished (akula artillery), 2 tier three obtained (virtus oberon artillery , ceres), one tier 4 finished
I don't want to even try, there is only stomping, purging, disrupting, heal bałłing, ramming etc. Grinding is not possible when the match is already a lost cause after 5 mins.
Pay to progress or not, if it takes a YEAR to grind out any piece of content, there's simply better games to play or ways to spend my time. I love what I see in T3-T4 and want to try it, but that's too much to ask to even reach the deep end, let alone get some of my friends to commit similarly and enjoy it.
So sure, maybe we're bad or just don't want it enough, but to throw away 6 potential players who certainly had the interest in the game before the grind-wall hit; that's just bad design and bad business. That's my point. I'm not interested in how to curb pub-stomping in a tier we can't even get all our guys into. I'm not interested in how reasonable it is if we were to turn our membership into a paid subscription (I can't get all of our guys to do that – 1-time purchase MAYBE). I'm not interested in how good or bad you think you or any of my crew are; your defensiveness is irrelevant to the fact that a significant number of our broad skill spectrum can't get into T3 before deciding the game takes too many hours to get to T3. I'm not even interested in how mediocre the matchmaking is, because while that's ANOTHER game-killing problem, it's not the one that we've been exposed to to cause several of our group to lose interest and quit.
I'm interested in the fact that 6 players who were hype about this game are quitting after dozens of hours of gameplay, before getting to experience anything but the most superficial of its depth and core offering. That's an obvious mistake to me, and should be a clear red flag to Grey Box, even if it's not evident to other already invested players (though clearly it is to some).
The flawed scoring system definitely plays into this, but moreso than poorly distributed income is that the resources required to get unlocks and the barrier between a new player and getting to any tier with module and ship diversity (where the game really has the potential to shine and sell its value proposition, IMO) is IMMENSE! Layered ontop of a broken points/XP system and translated to time, the cover price paid in time to get in is really quite absurd. The game could do much better even with a broken XP system, if it at least did not have such an exorbitent cost to get to the core gameplay of T3-T4 w/module choice. As long as that cover exists, it makes more sense to just move on, because even paying money won't fix our problem with this game, it will just make it marginally less painful. :-(