Can we please just scrap the entire idea of there being some ships inherently better then others and splitting things up into Tiers.
This is beyond silly, this game doesn't need to be turned into World of tanks. This game is good already.
How bout we have a bunch of ships, you pick the one you want to play and that's it.
Agreed. It makes me very sad to see dreadnought going down this route. There is no way you can justify having higher tiered ships that are more powerful than low tier but still claim that they wont stomp all over the lower tier ships. If they stay with this system I can guarantee I will not be playing this game after beta. A friend of mine was going to download this game today but after I told him about these changes he has changed his mind.
I genuinely love how the game plays now, it's not without it's faults but it is very good.
However I have astonishingly little interest in dealing with tier progressions and the like.
I'm glad I got to play dreadnought when it was good.
WarViper1337#8868 posted (#post-40431)
There is no way you can justify having higher tiered ships that are more powerful than low tier but still claim that they wont stomp all over the lower tier ships.
This will probably not be the case. From watching the livestream is sounded a lot like the Devs hinted at the increased stats not being very large. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that Tiers will differ by a margin of 5-15% in specific stats, rather than across the board. In most cases you could probably dismiss these differences in favor of smarts, teamplay, and experience.
On top of the negligible stat increase across tiers, matchmaking will now be divided up into brackets. I only caught part of this section but i believe it went as follows:
Tier 1 + Tier 2
Tier 2 + Tier 3 + Tier 4
Tier 5
If this is correct i would absolutely recommend Yager to divide the brackets into something more balanced, like this:
Tier 1 + Tier 2
Tier 3 + Tier 4
Tier 5
That should allow new players to start out in a not too challenging enviroment while also cutting of the high-end Tier 5's from other tiers. Of course this completely assumes my guess about the stat increase is correct.
The Devs also mentioned that a module can be installed on any ship of the same, or higher, tier as the module. That in and of itself would make the change to progression worthwhile. No more Rank 5 getting purge rammed by a Rank 50. It also future proofs higher tiers by giving you the option of using lower-tier modules in order to gain advantage of certain perks that, said lower-tier, module may have.
Furthermore, Thor and Peter did both note very early on that this would help greatly with ship balancing. Newer players tend to tunnel vision and not notice corvettes sneaking up on their team. The Tier system would allow them to tweak the performance of lower tier Corvettes to not be as strong, all while being able to keep the higher tier Corvettes competitive.
If the module progression is as advertised it should allow players to bypass modules that they don't care about (i for one couldn't care less about getting "Onslaught" for my Monarch).
So far the Tier system solves:
My spaceship brings all the boys to the yard
Carrier-Class Ideas 1.6 | Module Ideas 1.1
T-Shirt Designs | Ship specific Voice-Packs
If their argument was genuine about different playstyles and whatnot, I think 2 tiers would have been sufficient.
So while I see their argument, I have a reflexive dislike of systems like the one they proposed.
We need "Alpha" and "Beta" Camo Patterns! Just plaster the Word all over the ships hull in various sizes and angles !
Link: Artillery Overview
When I first time saw progression tree and you mentioned that there will be around 50 ships to play with I was hyped. But then I realized that we will be able to choose only from 5 ships of each manufactury at tier 5. So yeah...
I was actually hoping there will be some kind of specialization for each class. You know allow us to choose if we want our ship to be more offensive, defensive, supportive and so. Or choose hybrids between classes. That would be so cool. But now I feel like the only thing that has changed are restrictions.
We all know that matchmaking system needed some improvements especially for sorting people by their rank. But tier system doesn't seems to me as a good solution.
First of all I don't like different power levels for different ship tiers. Sooner or later you will be playing game with 5 players T4 vs. 5 players T5 and so. I would much rather see different ships with their own advantages and disadvantages. And all modules to be at similar level to provide meaningful choice. Scalling up hull bar and damage seems to me completely unneccessary and confusing. I would rather therycraft builds around constant numbers!
Next thing is when you want to play with your favorite T5 ship and you will be playing with your friend who only unlocked T2. You will be forced to play T2-T3 ships. GG.
I like progression in this game and unlocking new ships, modules or cosmetic parts is definitively a thing. I wouldn't mind if it will be represented as tree with different branches. But forcing players to play with ships on different power levels is wrong. Honeslty I've been playing so many action RPG so I can tell that power scalling is unneccessary evil. I guess it has some kind of psychological effect on childrens. 
The last thing is repair cost. When you lost the match you already gain only half of FP. So loosing match will be even more punishing. It's not a big deal but I can imagine it will cause more frustration when playing in public party against pre-made parties or just better fleets few times in a row.
Right now I have really mixed feelings about this change. We will see.
Apologies for my english.
The thing is, I actually think there's a decent amount of balance, or at least attempted balance, between the ship classes. Take the Dreadnought class. While the Monarch, the tier 3 dreadnought, is the most thickly armored and hard to take down, it's so slow it's easy to isolate and kill, and if you're caught out of position it's extremely difficult to get behind cover or into a better one without taking a pounding, and your guns are shorter range than the other dreadnoughts and have a much higher damage falloff at longer ranges due to projectile spread. Zmey is the middle ship, with heavy duty armor but still being able to maneuver, and having slow-moving projectiles that require more work leading your shots. Invictus might in terms of sheer tankiness be the weaker of the dreadnoughts, but its armor rating is still better than any other class and it is highly maneuverable and very fast, allowing for rapid repositioning if you're caught out and for chasing faster ships. I've actually seen hit-and-run invictus builds work quite well. in addition it has fast-firing guns and a much larger clip, allowing it to do consistent damage.
Also take the Destroyer, the Gora is actually the second strongest destroyer and it's tier 1, it's tanky and fast and can deal a tonne of damage: the Valencia might be faster and have a higher firepower, allowing for hit and run tactics on a destroyer, but it's got very little armor, very little hp, and a bigger hit box than other ships with similar defensive stats.
If you don't have tier-based systems then you might as well do away with the entire progression tree tbh, because i don't see that people will be interested in a progression tree that only has ship modules. Also, remember that beta matchmaking is messed up because of the low populations, in the actual release I don't imagine new players will be matched against level 50 players quite so much XD
'Never use a Tractor Beam on something that's better at killing stuff than you are.'
Well soon enough you'll have tier 2 players being matched against tier 4 because it's how you "encourage" them to cough up to get ahead.
There are currently no "tiers" in the game, the ships switched between levels throughout the Alpha and Beta without much impact.
Now we get a fully tiered system in which a higher tier Subhull Y Class X ship is better than its lower tier counterpart not because the person flying it has more experience but because it now gets additional health and a damage just for being a Tier 4 instead of a Tier 2.
For the most part the progression system in the current game was horizontal rather than vertical, outside of a select few abilities it didn't really matter because they were all situational or play style dependant.
A corvette with disruptor pulse is not better than a corvette with blast pulse in every scenario, they have different roles and playstyle. A Dreadnought with nuclear missile is not any worse than a dreadnought with a nuclear salvo because those abilities fill different roles (single target nuke vs larger scale AOE/area denial ability).
This 2.0 system changes all that, and effectively brings the game to what other vehicle based games and moving away from the moba style even battlefield with COD/BF style progression.
So yes quite a few people are displeased, WoT/AW/WoWS and the likes are hugely successful games because they are very well monetized, the competitive scene in them however is non-existent (WoT/WoWS is artificially fueled by Wargaming and there's pretty much no scene outside of it) the and they appeal to a very select types of players.
DN started differently and it seemed to appeal to a considerably much wider player base initially it had enough twitch / skill cap to fill the needs of the fast action fps like players, it had enough team play to fill the need for the MOBA/ARTS players and it was close enough in it's concept to pull some players away from the likes of WoWS.
Now with a tiering system, and a system that encourages people to grind or pay it quite likely going to turn out to be a very different beast.
It wasn't unexpected the monetization options so far were pretty d4mn slim, the cosmetics didn't had and couldn't have as much of an impact as they do in ARTS/MOBA/FPS games and it seemed that making money on selling PVE episodic content was also something that was deemed to be insufficient to keep the lights on, or at least bring in the sums of money that the developer and publisher expect.
At the end it's a "no brainer" for Yager/6ft they have had to come with a clear action plan to monetize the game throughout its lifecycle and copying a system that has been proven to work for other types of games is the easiest thing to do and from a corporate stance also the responsible thing to do from a fiduciary point.
But it doesn't mean it's a good system, WoT is one of those games that is very polarized some people loathe it some people can accept it but it all boils down to how they monetize and how they expose progression in the game rather than the gameplay itself.
On the other hand you have games like LoL and DOTA where while some people would not like the gameplay no one can say that the financial model they use is unfair or is build around artificial gating and time sinks.
DN 2.0 is probably the best chance this game currently has of keeping the lights off, but sadly the financial model of it is detrimental to players and is anti consumer, no matter how much lipstick you put on a big it's still a big.
If you are ok with it you most likely would continue to enjoy the game, if you were looking for a high action team based competitive end game well then look else where, most of us will.
