FORUMS


Just say NO to tiers!



Posted: //
July 18, 2016, 1:26 p.m.



Snib#1627 posted (#post-40874)

It's a bit naive to think that feedback could change anything about this, it's too costly to develop (both in time and money) to do a 180° after you implemented it unless your player numbers tank and you have no choice.

They stomped out the system in a few months, besides some altered geometry and varied stats they have just limited the avaiability of the modules.

In a way they've changed the target demographic though, many of the people who liked this game because of its horizontal progression will be out, remains to be seen who comes in.

Or they failed in doing a horizontal progression in a way they liked and gave up. We will see.


Recruit Engineer


Posted: //
July 18, 2016, 2:53 p.m.


Updated //
July 18, 2016, 2:56 p.m.

Jawayne#8001 posted (#post-40863)

Lets try something strange, be naive and believe the developers for a moment. If you watched the stream and listened to the explanation of the introduction of tiers there are two reasons why they went with this idea.

One beeing that many players stated in the surveys that they liked unlocking new ships, this may be a misunderstanding of the rather general questions and wording of those surveys. In hindsight a following focused survey to clarify this would have been better, at least considering the forum posts following the stream.

I would very much like to know how many exactly took the survey, as well as the pct. of ppl that did take it that said that

Jawayne#8001 posted (#post-40863)

The second one beeing that they could not balance the game in a way that there was meaningful horizontal progression and no power creep that would outclass new players. Matchmaking could only solve this partially, because the moment you squad up with a friend that is new to the game either you will be matched against new players or he will be matched against veteran players, both situations will annoy someone.

Or the matchmaker could try and find one player equal to your skill lvl and another equal to your friends skill lvl if possible (or alternatively 2 ppl that are in the middle of you and your friend), and that way make for more balanced team, which would make for more balanced team than this tier system could.

Jawayne#8001 posted (#post-40863)

Added on this the change of gameplay through tiers is a pretty neat concept to cater to more players, from an arcade version with fast matches and more twitchy gameplay up to hardcore tactical play with slower ships that have a lot more options module wise. Peter noted that they felt the Corvettes are to strong against new players and to weak in the lategame, thus with the tiers they can buff them to be a suitable choice again.

The main problem with the corvettes against new players is that they dont understand how corvettes work, nor properly understand some of the basic concept of the game in general(Like shields dont block 100% of dmg unless you are a corvette, so dont wait to activate it till you are a 5% health), a proper tutorial that first cover all the basics and later even cover each individual ship type as well would alleviate a LOT of this in a much better way I think

Jawayne#8001 posted (#post-40863)

If you quit the moment this gets live, you will not change anything, you need to test it and give your feedback again and again for some time. You can of course reduce the amount of money you put into it and eveen time, but we/you lost the battle only if the game launches with it, until then the decision is open.

I will certainly try it out, but if it gonna be so obnoxious as I think, I wont be able to endure it for long

Snib#1627 posted (#post-40874)

It's a bit naive to think that feedback could change anything about this, it's too costly to develop (both in time and money) to do a 180° after you implemented it unless your player numbers tank and you have no choice.

I dont think most ppl have much against the tech trees themselves, if they just reworked it so that none of the ships are statically better than others, but only different (differnet guns, differnet amount of speed/armor (like the ships we have right now), so only the tiering itself they would have to scrap really

Snib#1627 posted (#post-40874)

In a way they've changed the target demographic though, many of the people who liked this game because of its horizontal progression will be out, remains to be seen who comes in.

Definitely agree with that


Posted: //
July 19, 2016, 1:34 p.m.



Hi, I don't have an official developer forum account yet, but I'm the Executive Producer at YAGER, heading up Dreadnought's development.

Why tiers at all?

From a game design perspective, we felt that creating tiers of the content that we have was the only viable way for us to multiply our content and to be able to create a system for progression that allows players to unlock and progress towards the items: ships, modules, etc. they actually want, rather than putting everything (the things you don't want as well) on one long, straight path that gives you a lot of stuff you neither want nor need.

In the past we had ideas for doing exactly this with the content that we had, but it always turned out that it just wasn't enough. It wasn't enough in order to keep even us interested.

But, we thought, if we have more content within each ship class and subclass, then it should work. How do we make content that is, in truth, based off of the content we have without making said content... pointless and kind of arbitrary? We decided we'd reconsider the rule we'd created for ourselves and allow ourselves to create more powerful versions of the content we have.

After that reasoning, we started to realize that there are a lot of benefits to this system, and it affords us a lot of opportunities. For starters, we can take what we have and go further with it. For the higher tiers we don't have to be scared that the game will be too hardcore, that it will be unfair towards new players, that it will be paramount to have good healers, that Corvettes can kill things... in short, we can go hog wild.

For the lower tiers, we can finally fix things that were hard for us to deal with. Or, rather, that we didn't want to fix completely because of the adverse effect the fixes would have for the game as a whole. Corvettes, for example. Healing comes to mind.

And for everything in between, we can create a path from the one to the other. We can make sure that more people get into the parts of the game that we, and we take it a fair few of you, actually really like.

As for monetization. It is not our main focus, but we can say this though; we want players to like the game. We want players to keep liking the game and to keep playing it. We think this will keep players engaged longer. We think that this approach will keep players engaged longer so that while we're creating new content, and yes, I mean new classes, new modules, new manufacturers (we're dying to do all those things) you guys are still playing. Best case scenario, you're still there when the new content drops.

And as for balancing... well... The short answer is that we want to make sure that each tier of ships is internally balanced in much the same way (with some tweaks) as the game is now. We're adding loads of content, even though most of it is based off of content we already have, and there's no denying that this is a massive undertaking. Again, we'll do our absolute best, but it would be fantastic to get help from all of you.

On that note, one of the posts we read made an awesome case for us to use your help more, and we couldn't agree more. The last couple of months have been hectic to say the least, and we've been working on things that we just now made public. From here on in we should definitely listen more to you.

Cheers,

RickDekard


Posted: //
July 19, 2016, 1:43 p.m.



Jawayne#8001 posted (#post-40863)

If you quit the moment this gets live, you will not change anything, you need to test it and give your feedback again and again for some time. You can of course reduce the amount of money you put into it and eveen time, but we/you lost the battle only if the game launches with it, until then the decision is open.

Exactly we are here to test the game,you dont need to invest right now anyway,so its always your choice.I believe that tier system is a must in f2p titles,otherwise what you gonna do?ofc we will get new content from time to time,but the game itself need to keep you there.How many topics did we had not so long ago about progression being too boring and flat?


"The First Of His Name"


Posted: //
July 19, 2016, 2:04 p.m.



RickDeckard#2552 posted (#post-40957)

Hi, I don't have an official developer forum account yet, but I'm the Executive Producer at YAGER, heading up Dreadnought's development.

[snippage of excellent post]

RickDekard

THIS is the kind of posting and involvement I really would appreciate more of.
Thank you sir, for your excellent explanation and I look forward to shaking down this new system thoroughly!


Dreadnought was
Dreadnought could be
Dreadnought might
But what is, is Dead for naught.


Posted: //
July 19, 2016, 3:06 p.m.



RickDeckard#2552 posted (#post-40957)

Hi, I don't have an official developer forum account yet, but I'm the Executive Producer at YAGER, heading up Dreadnought's development.

Why tiers at all?

removed to keep things tidy

Cheers,

RickDekard

Thanks for the feedback. I still feel extremely hesitant about this decision to change to a tier based system along with a free to play (F2P) model. However I am hoping that beta 2.0 will at least give us a good idea as to how that system is going to work. I personally have a bone to pick with the F2P model and over my decades of being a gamer and seeing the rise of the F2P model I have only played ONE single game that got it right. Mostly I view F2P as a cancer that is now rapidly spreading through the industry. Games that could have ascended to greatness are drug down by endless hours of grinding, pay walls, and other things designed to entice players to keep opening up their wallets so they can stay on the curve. I know my criticism of this is harsh but it is the overall experience I have had under the F2P model.

Since we keep bringing up corvette balance I'm interested to see how your going to balance corvettes in the tier based system. The only thing I can see right now is that low tier corvettes are going to be neutered down to almost nothing so that new players can cope with them while high tier corvettes are death dealing machines almost like we have right now that can wipe out anything with less than 25k health in one attack run easily. How are fleet repair cost going to be fun? Will I be able to use my tier 5 ship as often as I want or will I have to jump into a low tier game and farm money to repair it? How is a tier 5 bracket even going to stay populated if the former is true? How are you going to balance punishing the losing team with increased repair cost on top of the already lower rewards?


Posted: //
July 19, 2016, 3:20 p.m.


Updated //
July 19, 2016, 4:08 p.m.

RickDeckard#2552 posted (#post-40957)

Hi, I don't have an official developer forum account yet, but I'm the Executive Producer at YAGER, heading up Dreadnought's development.

First of, thank you!

I had a distinct feeling you only communicated because "one does that nowadays", so I'll be willing to be proven wrong.
It's nice to see some reasoning, and it's nice to hear it wasn't only about copying a successful system for the money, even if I don't believe a word of it.

I'm just ... sceptical about it. Both the system, and the reasoning. I wanted to make a proper analysis post about this, but a direct answer is fitting, I think. And no, this is not about my gagreflex being triggered by wargaming and similar systems. I've worked on worse in the past.

First off, as I've already said before, people like unlocking ships because it's a new ship, it's a new perspective, possibly a new playstyle. They dislike grinding for it because it takes a long while, possibly with ships they don't like as much.
So the solution is to be to have more unlocks to grind for, but they are less different? Ok, I guess, but I think the chance it grows stale is very real. If I see the tier 1 and the tier 2, then the difference between them better be distinguishable from tier2 -> tier 3.
And psychologically, while I can see that people think a straight advancement boring, unlocking things they don't even want, I'd very much say the same thing about playing a ship for hours upon hours only to unlock a slightly stronger version of it. I certainly wouldn't think it's rewarding, you play something for 10 hours, then you essentially have to sacrifice all progress to get a 20% stronger base (by starting over with the next tier); repeat until tier 5.

Also, in the examples, say, WoT, players have a single life. Now, if you play in a TDM, or really any matchup with respawns, it is a problem if a player has just unlocked one ship of the tier the match is played in; They'll be lacking in choice, and flexibility. A problem that games with a single life a match simply don't have.
It's also kind of sad to see a vertical balancing because no matter the reasoning, it says"We fail at balancing!" one way or the other.
I could get along with a "new player bracket", followed by "standard" and "tactical" -though I don't have high hopes given "tactical" cruisers that are anything but-, but the tiers are just named 1-5, and that implies just getting stronger, which you confirmed is the case. I think there's potential already lost in communicating the system, here. Hoping that'll be worked out in the coming months, even though I obviously see it's no priority.

Then there's presentation of stats and the like; a lot of people would like more of those, to make better educated decisions, and if we have up to 5 copies of the same ship with a few differences, that'll just be so much clutter you'll have an even better reason to not bother. :/

Lastly, I wonder about the actual monetization: With the new ships, you're essentially giving away a lot of cosmetics that people could have otherwise bought, and you'll have to get that money somewhere else.
To say nothing of the fact I sure hope the lower tier visuals can be kept on higher tiers, I don't like my ships growing fat.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I'm anxious about something going wrong, and not quite sure the changes on the horizon are fit to improve what we have now significantly enough to outweigh the risks.
And I do see potential. A high level bracket could have more turrets, making facing important, or other such gimmicks.
But will you actually do that? I guess you can't tell yet? smile


We need "Alpha" and "Beta" Camo Patterns! Just plaster the Word all over the ships hull in various sizes and angles !
Link: Artillery Overview


Posted: //
July 20, 2016, 11:20 a.m.



UnLimiTeD#2482 posted (#post-40965)

To say nothing of the fact I sure hope the lower tier visuals can be kept on higher tiers, I don't like my ships growing fat.

Oh yes, good point. I absolutely hate it when high tier aestethics are totally ott. It's a pest especially in rpgs. Where you got to have the ridiculously shining and blinking swords the size of a phone pole to do certain dungeons and such. The lower tiers are usually much more visually pleasing. Gods bless vanity loadouts like in Conan Unchained.

Your post made me think. Another possibility to unlock new things is unlocking slots, like they do on cars in APB. New versions of ships could eg just boast new slots or new variants of weapons, but keep the basic stats unchanged. Also, they could unlock new cosmetical features.


"My rule is: If you meet the weakest vessel, attack; if it is a vessel equal to yours, attack; and if it is stronger than yours, also attack…"
- Admiral Stepan O. Makarov (1849-1904)


Posted: //
July 23, 2016, 10:06 p.m.


Updated //
July 23, 2016, 10:11 p.m.

Any tiered system where T1 < T2 < T3 etc. will be harmful to this game. It forces a bad choice (in my opinion): either get the higher tier stuff or face an uphill battle as you progress. It just reduces player role mobility.

Adding new ships is good, but what these ships bring to the table should be specializations and not just a 5-15% general boost in stats or whatever. For example, a higher tier tactical cruiser could essentially be an electronic warfare cruiser instead of a healer (with appropriate bonuses to those types of modules or the ability to fit certain specialty modules). A higher tier destroyer or dread could act as a command ship to give bonuses to attack and defense to nearby allies while having reduced local offensive and defensive capabilities. There are a lot of ways to go here...

The point is, Tier 1/Trader ships should never be categorically outclassed. Progression should lead to more options instead of simply more powerful ships that give you no reason to ever select anything vanilla.

Just my $0.02...


  • Alexei G

Posted: //
July 23, 2016, 10:39 p.m.



AlexeiGreshenko#8005 posted (#post-41252)

Any tiered system where T1 < T2 < T3 etc. will be harmful to this game. It forces a bad choice (in my opinion): either get the higher tier stuff or face an uphill battle as you progress. It just reduces player role mobility.

Adding new ships is good, but what these ships bring to the table should be specializations and not just a 5-15% general boost in stats or whatever. For example, a higher tier tactical cruiser could essentially be an electronic warfare cruiser instead of a healer (with appropriate bonuses to those types of modules or the ability to fit certain specialty modules). A higher tier destroyer or dread could act as a command ship to give bonuses to attack and defense to nearby allies while having reduced local offensive and defensive capabilities. There are a lot of ways to go here...

The point is, Tier 1/Trader ships should never be categorically outclassed. Progression should lead to more options instead of simply more powerful ships that give you no reason to ever select anything vanilla.

Just my $0.02...

So very much THIS.

I got giddy at the promise of "50 new ships" at first, but then realized that it could also mean that we're just getting the original 15 ships, and then we're getting 35 ships that are just beefed up variations on them, which to me feels like a copout. I'm liking how each of the 15 ships we currently have feel and play differently, not to mention that I just absolutely LOVE how I can take the very first ship I bought, and still make it effective against more experienced players as long as I'm playing well and choosing the right modules.

Those aspects are unfortunately those I feel would be lost in a Tiered system, where I'll just treat ships as expendable stepping stones on the way up to a newer, more powerful version of the previous ship. If it's a tiered system, at the very least make it so that we unlock options, not mandatory upgrades, very much like how the current system works: yes the Koschei is unlocked at a higher Captain Rank, but it's not necessarily better all around than an Aion.

This forum is restricted, posts cannot be made.