FORUMS


Are you intentionally designing a frustrating game?



Posted: //
March 28, 2017, 3:27 a.m.



BadAlchemy#4871 posted (#post-114339)

There is nothing wrong with the system, its you as a player.

Not being harsh but good play is rewarded appropriately with enough credits. If you cannot do well in a Veteran match then you as the player need more practice and to learn the game better before going back to Veteran matches.

An indication of good play is a score of 1200-2500 a match. If you don't average that you aren't doing well and are hindering your team.

I play exclusively in veteran and have yet to run out of credits for months, especially since they increased credit earning after all the complaints.

fully agree. I only ever play veteran matches and I never ever come anywhere close to running out of credits.


Posted: //
March 28, 2017, 10:58 a.m.



Skurkanas#7793 posted (#post-115211)

I don't think that'd change anything. You can get a full t2 fleet in a couple of hours (and then discard it again once you need to level your T3) and a full T4 fleet takes months to acquire, so T5 would be even more deserted than it is now.

Besides, it is always better to reward than to punish. Bringing fleets should be something you want to do, not something you have to do.

This is true. Progression would have to be made easier either way. It seems this is the crux of the matter. Whatever the devs do to make this game less frustrating for players, the foundation must be to somehow quicken progression to upper level tiers---that is, to make tier 5 at least possible for players who do not live in a cave in the basement 9 hours/day playing the game.

-N03


Posted: //
March 28, 2017, 4:08 p.m.



I think this is really hurting the whole vision of "diverse, tactically flexible fleets." If many players are only bringing minimal fleets consisting of the two ships they are most interested in grinding up (like I have been recently, so I can make credits to grind them faster), then more games will result in situations where a team cannot adapt to a changing situation because no one has the ships for it.


In the immortal words of Socrates: "I drank... What?"


Posted: //
March 28, 2017, 6:21 p.m.



obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-114440)
The only company which has actually managed to succeed to any real degree with a maintenance-like system is Wargaming (World of Tanks/Warships/whatever), and they as a company have openly ADMITTED IT WAS A MISTAKE. They've attributed NONE of their success to that decision, and have confirmed they succeeded IN SPITE OF using that model, thanks to a large collection of other factors which allowed them to get away with it.

Hey Oblivion, can you link me to your source for that bit? I'm unusually interested in reading developer interviews and the like where they actually discuss things like that.


Probably getting way too personally invested in one of them there freemium games.


Posted: //
March 29, 2017, 6:01 p.m.



Here's a thing I just noticed, I think keeping bottom tiered ships in your fleet brings your maintenance costs down.

A veteran fleet with two T3s alone costs 900 to upkeep.

A veteran fleet with the same two T3s and one T2 costs about 845 to upkeep.

Will continue investigating.


In the immortal words of Socrates: "I drank... What?"


Posted: //
March 29, 2017, 6:08 p.m.



MasterFALE#0097 posted (#post-115461)

Here's a thing I just noticed, I think keeping bottom tiered ships in your fleet brings your maintenance costs down.

A veteran fleet with two T3s alone costs 900 to upkeep.

A veteran fleet with the same two T3s and one T2 costs about 845 to upkeep.

Will continue investigating.

Two T3s and Two (Elite) T2s, 791 upkeep. A note, all my T2s are elite... So there may be some effect to that.


In the immortal words of Socrates: "I drank... What?"


Posted: //
March 29, 2017, 6:25 p.m.



MasterFALE#0097 posted (#post-115462)

MasterFALE#0097 posted (#post-115461)

Here's a thing I just noticed, I think keeping bottom tiered ships in your fleet brings your maintenance costs down.

A veteran fleet with two T3s alone costs 900 to upkeep.

A veteran fleet with the same two T3s and one T2 costs about 845 to upkeep.

Will continue investigating.

Two T3s and Two (Elite) T2s, 791 upkeep. A note, all my T2s are elite... So there may be some effect to that.

Two T3s (not elite) and three T2s (Elite) in a veteran fleet have an upkeep around 750 credits.


In the immortal words of Socrates: "I drank... What?"


Posted: //
March 29, 2017, 7:03 p.m.



there hasn't been a single game my coin goes lower than where I started before a game. I run 5 tier 3 ships in my vet fleet. I'm not seeing why this is such a big deal.


Posted: //
March 30, 2017, 1:48 a.m.


Updated //
March 30, 2017, 1:53 a.m.

InquisitorMaus#5947 posted (#post-115467)

there hasn't been a single game my coin goes lower than where I started before a game. I run 5 tier 3 ships in my vet fleet. I'm not seeing why this is such a big deal.

This issue has been there for months. I come on the forums once in a while just to see that nothing has changed. Heck, I haven't launched the game in quite some time and I would bet that you still can't rebind your 1234 keys on an AZERTY keyboards (keys &, é, ", '). This has been an issue for a year now. And the excuse of "the unreal engine doesn't support AZERTY" is just complete bullshit. Astroneer is the most recent example of game I played in UE4 where I could fully remap everything to the weirdest keys on my keyboard... and it's in freaking pre-alpha early access, very much still in development by a team of like 7 people.

Anyway... sorry for the off topic rant.

If you don't see why all the fuss, it's simple: this game is designed to make you pay out of frustration. You don't pay because you are happy with the game, you pay because you want to get rid of an awful system. And it's not hidden in the slightest, it's right in your face.
When you read blogposts about devs saying that they want people to have a whole flexible fleet, while at the same time punishing this strategy of having more than one ship per fleet, it feels quite off. It's basically like saying "we are going to make you frustrated if you use multiple ships, so please use multiple ships, so you will have to buy an Elite Status out of frustration. That's what maintenance is for".

It's easy to see why people are not happy with that. Even if they already know that yes, you can still earn credit, and yes, this game needs to be profitable.
There are other ways of doing that, but the devs took that approach anyway and basically tell everyone to deal with it. Or to leave, but that's only implied.

(Edit: When I use the word "devs", I include everyone involved in the development, marketing guys and publisher stuff as well.)


Posted: //
March 30, 2017, 1:57 a.m.



InquisitorMaus#5947 posted (#post-115467)

there hasn't been a single game my coin goes lower than where I started before a game. I run 5 tier 3 ships in my vet fleet. I'm not seeing why this is such a big deal.

It's only a big deal for the players who score under 1k and drag their team down. They lose more often than they win so they feel the effects of upkeep more. But you're right, its not an issue, people just like to complain

This forum is restricted, posts cannot be made.