FORUMS


New petition/open letter - please, actually TAKE the advice you say you're "listening" to!



Posted: //
Dec. 15, 2016, 10:26 p.m.


Updated //
Jan. 22, 2017, 8:42 p.m.

Hi Dreadnought team,

I'm obliviondoll, and as you know, I've been here since the alpha. There are a lot of us, and back then, there were even more. You've obviously noticed that there are a lot less players sticking around lately, and presumably, you're aware of why. After all, the reasons we have to be abandoning you in droves have been repeated over and over again on the forums, and you are "listening" to us. So clearly, you know exactly what you did wrong.

This begs the question: Why are you not ACTING ON THE FEEDBACK YOU'RE GETTING?

Almost the entirety of progression 2.0 is just mistakes piled up on mistakes piled up on even more mistakes. Everything about it is fundamentally wrong. You're missing ALL the points that actually lead to a successful free-to-play model. Your attempt at monetisation has been proven NOT to work in more cases than it's succeeded. Even the games which haven't died from doing it have only survived due to extenuating circumstances Dreadnought doesn't have in its favour, and even those games have been starting to falter in recent years.

There's been a petition floating around for about 2 weeks, and while it was formed with the best of intentions, it was following the company line. It's basically giving up on getting meaningful change, and asking for ANYTHING that even comes CLOSE to what the players actually want. It really isn't asking for nearly enough. For this game to bring a reasonable number of its old players back, and for this game to actually succeed long-term, it needs to change MASSIVELY. The current model simply CANNOT do that, even with "tweaking" and "rebalancing". The current direction of giving players almost the exact opposite of what we've been asking at each step clearly doesn't cut it.
Link to that petition for reference: https://www.greybox.com/dreadnought/en/forum/topic/33237/

In less than half the time that petition has been running, I've managed to gather almost twice as many votes on a poll. This poll WASN'T written to favour my preferences. It was open for anyone to share their perspectives, and the vast majority have voted against the model used for progression 2.0 with just over 2/3 of the 95 current votes being for "go back to the build before progression 2.0".
Link to my poll thread for reference: https://www.greybox.com/dreadnought/en/forum/topic/33237/
Direct link to poll: http://www.strawpoll.me/11833010

Just for the record, this is NOT a petition asking that you revert to that build and never change. There were certainly issues. Even there, the progression system was restrictive and needed a lot of rebalancing. There aren't a lot of cosmetic options for the skins in that build. The new ship models created for progression 2.0 would offer a really good way to diversify the cosmetic features, giving players a lot of really cool things to spend money on. THAT is how successful free games monetise, by the way. Not by enforcing a subscription to get around the obnoxious grind. Simply giving players REALLY COOL THINGS which we actually want to spend money on is a great start. Making the grind become obnoxious once we have a small fleet OF OUR OWN DEVISING - giving us the freedom to choose what to unlock and when - would be another great solution, which I've proposed before.

The purpose of this petition is to request the following persistent and repeated feedback is not merely "listened" to and discarded, but is actually taken on board and USED for the purposes of actually saving this game from the hole it's digging itself ever deeper into with its curent direction.

  1. No maintenance. We know, you think it's a way to make money. If nobody is playing, you're making nothing. By NOT having mechanics which exist only to get in the way of gameplay for monetisation reasons, you will keep players interested. By making the things people pay for ACTUALLY INTERESTING, you will have players who WANT to spend money. Many of us actively want to support this game, because the core gameplay is fun. But if you're putting obstacles in the way to FORCE it, we're going to walk away instead. The majority of gamers are heading in that direction. You're shutting the door in our faces and demanding payment, and we're just walking away instead of paying the toll.

  2. No tech tree. Again, we know this took a lot of work. That doesn't mean it works. The negativity surrounding this is not as harsh as maintenance, but it's still very much disliked by the playebrase as a whole. Instead, a NON-LINEAR experience-based unlock system would be a great solution. This game isn't a MOBA, but it is a class-based shooter with a fairly wide selection of ships, and having a MOBA-like progression system would be a great benefit. Don't lock players into a fixed linear path. Don't lock players into a specific pre-written set of linear paths. Let us make OUR OWN CHOICES. Give players a token, hangar slot, or something every 5 levels, with which to buy a new ship. Give players other tokens every level which allow them to alter the modules and other features. I've proposed this idea before, but it's only one of MANY ways the old progression system could be modified into something that works better for the game, better for the players, AND opens up more monetisation options. Selling these tokens/hangar slots for real money is a valid and intelligent choice - especially if the later stages of the grind once a player has a handful of ships become exponentially longer, and you end up with huge stacks of credits and very little to spend them on. If you want to run out of in-game money at higher tiers, you'll be spending real money in order to have something to spend those credits on. That said, there are a lot of other ways the system could be changed for the better, and almost none of them can be built on the current tech tree system.

  3. No tiers. This would condense the current 15 with a bunch of variations of the exact same ship back to 15 ships. If you want to add new ships to the game, they'll have to ACTUALLY BE NEW SHIPS. But that isn't a bad thing! That means the "new" ships (which were never really new anyway) become cosmetic items. You know all those people I mentioned who would LOVE to pay you to keep the game alive, but are feeling like you're pushing us away? Having a collection of 3 to 5 new skins for each of the ships we love would give a lot of cool cosmetic options. Another great feature provided by the removal of tiers is the removal of tier-based matchmaking. This means that a proper skill-based matchmaking system is actually a viable option. Ranking players based on just the level of their ships will ALWAYS result in horribly unbalanced match-ups where experienced players will stomp all over the "I just bought a hero ship what does this button do?" people in high-tier matches, and the recruit games will be full of high-level players who are running their bottom-tier fleets to save the credits they can't earn in higher tiers. Whenever a new player comes in, they'll be a goldfish in a sea of sharks, and there will be nothing you can "tweak" or "rebalance" to change that fact.

TL;DR version:
We want the game built on a frame that actually held up under its own weight. The patch before the progression 2.0/shipyard was the last workable system to build from. We understand that it's hard, but this is very obviously the direction the players not only WANT, but NEED if you want us to stay.

I will not be editing this post to reflect poll results, but below are the results at 95 votes (current when this post is made). I will add future updates as posts in the thread when replying to anyone who signs. This OP will only be edited to update the number of signatures, and to correct typoes/formatting issues.

Revert to previous build: 67% (more than 2/3 of votes - 64)
Attempt to tweak numbers to make progression 2.0 work: 17% (16 votes)
Create another new system: 16% (15 votes - for more than 50 votes, this had more support than prog2.0 did)

Signed.

Signatures: 38


http://i.imgur.com/f5SVkIz.jpg
---V^^^V---
Step into your daydreams, and follow them home


Posted: //
Dec. 15, 2016, 10:59 p.m.



I voted, but I won't comment on what needs to be changed. Lots of my thoughts have been shared by you guys already.


Posted: //
Dec. 15, 2016, 11:02 p.m.



I voted, but won't comment on what works or not for me. My thoughts have already been shared by many of you.


Posted: //
Dec. 15, 2016, 11:10 p.m.



I voted, but won't comment on what works or not for me. My thoughts have already been shared by many of you.


Posted: //
Dec. 15, 2016, 11:38 p.m.



Very well done. I feel exactly the same. I'm a 4 year veteran of Mech Warrior Online. 1 year closed/open beta and 3 years of release. Been with Dreadnought for a long time as well. You should really look at that game. They did the same thing with maintenance and the player base went insane. They took it out and game has been going on for years now with no real hitches. It's not perfect, but it's doing well. They don't have tiers but they do have many many battlemechs and variants to choose from. They have some Hero and Champion mechs you can purchase that give a boost in exp/money and will give you a distinct paint job. Might want to look at their platform and learn from them. Just an idea though, but it works and has kept me playing that game now for 4 years. I have also bought many mech packs just like OP talks about, is what you need here. Yeah, I bought the founders pack and have all that, but now that I'm in a tier 3 ship, I haven't made any cash because my pugs keep losing. I will never be able to actually "buy" a skill once I've researched them or go any higher in my ships. Really a shame.

Praxx


Posted: //
Dec. 16, 2016, 9:49 a.m.



The poll is now over 100 votes (103) and is at 70% in favour of reverting to the old build.


http://i.imgur.com/f5SVkIz.jpg
---V^^^V---
Step into your daydreams, and follow them home


Posted: //
Dec. 16, 2016, 9:51 a.m.


Updated //
Dec. 16, 2016, 9:55 a.m.

https://www.twitch.tv/spideroz/v/107617668
Developers Rountable,answered all the community questions.You can get a clear picture what will be changed in the future.Pretty interesting stuff.Take your time and listen.


"The First Of His Name"


Posted: //
Dec. 16, 2016, 10:09 a.m.



SIGNED

this may not cover everything wrong with the game, but ALL that it covers are at the top of my list of what this game needs!


Posted: //
Dec. 16, 2016, 11:54 a.m.


Updated //
Dec. 16, 2016, 11:56 a.m.

I agree on all but the tier issue.

This game is one that the Tier's progression is fine. Granted they buggered up and made you go through ships you could care less about, but that isn't that hard to adjust. Tiered progression is fine in most games, World of Tanks, World of Warships, Armored Warfare are great games, and have tier progression. AW I believe have done it the best, with XP being the limiter as you tier, not credits. This means that while you are working on getting the research, making the tank better, you are gaining credits. You still have to buy each upgrade, but they are, at most, a single matches worth of credits, they are usually cheaper then that. By the time you have the XP needed for the next tank (reaching 100% on a tank) you have enough money for the next one. This means your not sitting there grinding away on a tank you already have maxed out in XP to get enough money for the next tank. Your not sitting there accumulating XP on a tank YOU SHOULD BE OUT OF! This makes each match more or less WORTHLESS to the player, as your time would be better spent leveling up the next tank, rather then gaining XP on a tank you already maxed out. You COULD use premium money to get rid of the XP off the tank, but that is NOT THE POINT of the game, the point is to reach max tier and have fun in the biggest baddest tanks in modern day. If a player wants to speed things along with XP from another tank, then they can, it should not be FORCED upon them. Dreadnought SHOULD DO THE SAME!!
A pair videos for you (devs) to LEARN from, and you better learn fast LOL Its about F2P and how to do it right without coercing players out of there money. Right now, you (devs) have done everything in these videos WRONG!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwI0u9L4R8U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhz9OXy86a0


Posted: //
Dec. 17, 2016, 2:21 a.m.


Updated //
Dec. 17, 2016, 2:23 a.m.

Odin#5262 posted (#post-79412)

https://www.twitch.tv/spideroz/v/107617668
Developers Rountable,answered all the community questions.You can get a clear picture what will be changed in the future.Pretty interesting stuff.Take your time and listen.

Thanks for the link, Odin. I definitely will get around to that at some point. I'm NOT expecting good news, and I'm NOT expecting them to say they're even considering addressing any of the core problems that progression 2.0 introduces - I'm expecting more of the "dev talk #2" attempts to push "tweaking" the formula they've thrown into the game without realising how bad a plan it really is. I'll probably comment more directly on the video once I've actually watched/listened, though.

Raging#8976 posted (#post-79415)

SIGNED

this may not cover everything wrong with the game, but ALL that it covers are at the top of my list of what this game needs!

And thank you for the support. I honestly don't think this proposal will fix everything, either. It's a way to get the game back onto a track where it can bring back the players it lost, and retain new ones. The current state of the game does neither of those things, while pre-progression 2.0 we had not only a solid base of active long-time players, but pretty good numbers of new players coming in and enjoying the game right from the start.

All this request is for is to get the game back on the right path, NOT to make everything all better. That will still need work even after this happens - assuming it does happen (which seems unlikely given the responses the devs have been giving so far).

John Hand#1058 posted (#post-79442)

I agree on all but the tier issue.

Not quoting the whole of that, but it is a well thought-out post. I don't personally like tier systems, and MANY of the pre-existing players Dreadnought had dedicated to the game before progression 2.0 also dislike them. I can understand/justify/forgive a tier system in the games you mentioned in large part because of their setting. They have the concept of using existing modern vehicles rather than sci-fi and fantastical creations. That REQUIRES them to have items which were never designed to compete against one another, whereas this kind of game isn't like that. The tier system, while annoying, is LESS annoying when it's somewhat justified by real-world history and by a wide variety of machines which actually exist, being given somewhat realistic representations of their capabilities.

It also hurts this game's case that the different tiers are so obviously just tweaked/reworked variants of the previous model in the tree. In World of Tanks/Warships/Whatever and other games like it, each unit is, in almost every case, unique and different, rather than just a slightly modified reskin of the model before it. The designs, performance, strengths/weaknesses and general stat balance is pretty much just a linear upgrade from one tier to the next with some tiers also coming with extra upgrade slots.

Another point is that all those games have succeeded in large part by having stable communities already in place before any real competition existed - without those pre-established communities, the tier-based system simply CAN'T support enough players. The matchmaking breaks down rapidly even with only 3 separate matchmaking tiers across 5 tiers of ships. Having to use tier-based matchmaking also blocks the ability to use skill-based matchmaking, and blocks it even harder when you add it to a game with a smaller playerbase like what Dreadnought is having to work with. The niche role of the game combined with already having stable existing competition means the game's community can never be as large as those games which already have established communities supporting them and keeping their tier-based model (mostly) workable.

Even after factoring all that in, Wargaming.net has been gradually losing the playerbase for WoT and their other games in recent years, many of those players citing the long grind and the tier-based systems as a big reason why they're moving to other games instead of sticking with it. That model is becoming less popular in new games because they're seeing it NOT working in other new games, and even starting to fail in the games which have traditionally been getting away with it.

I'm not saying there aren't games which have made tier-based tech trees work. I'm just saying there are a LOT of reasons why it's a better idea to not be doing that. It can be made to work, but the reasons why it KIND OF works in some games don't really translate very easily into this type of game, and the extra work required to make them happen would be effort better spent on other things. Like expanding on the things that had already been working before progression 2.0 came out and broke at least half of them.

Lastly, POLL UPDATE: 110 votes

Revert: 71% (78)
Tweak Prog2.0: 15% (17)
New system: 14% (15)


http://i.imgur.com/f5SVkIz.jpg
---V^^^V---
Step into your daydreams, and follow them home

This forum is restricted, posts cannot be made.