FORUMS


Progression System Revision



Posted: //
July 14, 2016, 5:24 p.m.



A lot of people didn't like what was announced during the community stream, so here i am trying to reshape the progression system to the betterment of both players and Devs. I'm only covering the ship progression because frankly i don't know what to do about modules.

Click here for a full visualization.


  • A total of three Tiers exist. Each Tier has it's own matchmaking bracket (to avoid unbalanced matchmaking).
  • Tier 1 has five ships in total. Tier 2 has fifteen ships in total. Tier 3 has thirty ships in total. This sets the grand total at 50 ships, just like the Devs we already planning.
  • Each player starts out with one Tier 1 ship from each Ship Class.
  • Each Tier 1 ship unlocks three Tier 2 ships.
  • Tier 2 ships include an upgraded version of the Tier 1 ship (ie Athos Mk2), and two new ships (ie the Gora and the Talionis).
  • The Mk2 version of a ship has approximately 5-10% better stats across the board.
  • Each Tier 2 ship unlocks two Tier 3 ships.
  • Tier 3 is compromised of a "Light" and "Heavy" version of each ship.
  • The Tier 3 "Heavy" version has X amount more armor. The Tier 3 "Light" version is X% faster
  • Certain Tier 2 ships will allow you to research ships in other ship classes

Quick Preview

Tier 1 = Yellow
Tier 2 = Orange
Tier 3 = Red
Green lines represent the Research paths between ships


Did i miss anything? Thoughts?


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


Posted: //
July 14, 2016, 7:36 p.m.



Doesn't sound much if any different from what the devs were showing in the stream, the main problem is the plain power increase which you still have in your model, so wont satisfy many ppl what you wrote there


Posted: //
July 15, 2016, 7:26 a.m.



Gummiel#9225 posted (#post-40561)

Doesn't sound much if any different from what the devs were showing in the stream, the main problem is the plain power increase which you still have in your model, so wont satisfy many ppl what you wrote there

So the main problem people have with progression 2.0 is ships becoming stronger..? Is that really it?


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


Posted: //
July 15, 2016, 7:47 a.m.



Zerek#7494 posted (#post-40611)

So the main problem people have with progression 2.0 is ships becoming stronger..? Is that really it?

With in-tier match-making as you propose I don't think most would have a problem with that other than a general wariness about splitting up the low player base. Seen that happen in Star Conflict and left that game when T5 games ended up being 1v1 with 2 bots each side in an originally 15v15 game.


My Dreadnought tools and resources: Dreadnought Datamine | Snib's Dreadnought Steam Launcher | Hangar background noise remover


Posted: //
July 15, 2016, 10:07 a.m.


Updated //
July 15, 2016, 10:08 a.m.

Zerek#7494 posted (#post-40611)

Gummiel#9225 posted (#post-40561)

Doesn't sound much if any different from what the devs were showing in the stream, the main problem is the plain power increase which you still have in your model, so wont satisfy many ppl what you wrote there

So the main problem people have with progression 2.0 is ships becoming stronger..? Is that really it?
Yes, more than that ships from different tiers would play different, because of different speed, health pool, and damage.
It's been touted that tier 1-2 would be very arcady, while tier 4 is more or less where we are now.

That's even worse what happens when people find tier 1 to be more enjoyable? what happens when tier 5 is great for Horde mode but is horrible for competitive PVP?

The sad truth is that 2.0 has nothing to do with balance, it has everything to do with income across the entire lifecycle of the game the simple math was that cosmetics were not enough, and that selling the game for 30-40$ + and or possibly selling the episodic PVE content separately wasn't a viable/sustainable business model according to their market research.

Tiered games do not have a good esport scene, WoWS is artificially funded, no one considered any of the WoT like games to be a fair playing ground regardless of how popular they are.

We already have a pretty d4mn good balance across the board, the skill gap is the biggest differentiator atm and I've made accounts to solo level only to prove that to myself. There are still a few outliers out there mainly abilities which are really powerful and are straight upgrades rather than "sidegrades" but those should be addressed individually.

I don't mind having different revisions of the same ships that would have different advantages and disadvantages but it needs to be balanced, tiers by definition are not balanced they are clear upgrades over what you had before and that's just lazy game design.

My only hope now is that we'll have custom game modes that we can set exactly which ships are going to be useable in which configuration but I have strong doubts that they would ever do that.

I don't blame the dev's going on with this system, it's the only proven system they had even it's the exact system so many of us that play dreadnought have intentionally steered away from.
They had a chance of making a good and unique game that might even build it's own competitive scene internally, now they might have a chance of making a successful game but at the end it would turn into nothing but a clone of WoWS.


Don't get mad - git gud.


Posted: //
July 15, 2016, 10:55 a.m.



Just say no to tiers.

This forum is restricted, posts cannot be made.