Absolutely Zero Need For Maint. Cost

Posted: //
May 6, 2017, 7:03 a.m.

I've barely played any Veteran, but what I have played cost me, and I see it over and over again on these forums that it's costing everyone else.

For the love of all things holy devs, please remove maintenance as a game feature before this game ever goes live. Other games such as MWO that used to do repair/rearm costs stopped doing it, for good reason- PLAYERS HATE IT.

There is never any reason a thing like this needs to be in a game. Adjust earnings if you feel like there's an imbalance, find other ways to create's not immersive when you can't play at all because you can't afford to play a certain tier due to maintenance costs, it's just silly. This does not encourage buying Elite status, this encourages not playing, or simply sticking to Recruit matches forever.

I've never, ever understood why any game introduces any cost to the player of in-game currency after a match. If for some reason you think they're making too much per match, change the rewards, lower the earnings, why take some away based on some performance-based metric that no one can see? It's silly, it's frustrating, and it really, really needs to go, because it's one of the single largest issues preventing this game from becoming truly successful someday, I can guarantee you with 100% certainty.

Love what you've done so far with DN, please keep up the good work, and please, please get maintenance out of there so more people can actually enjoy your game and keep it alive and healthy. Trim cancerous features early before they have a chance to ruin the reputation of the game, as is already starting to happen here.

"I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you."

Posted: //
May 6, 2017, 11:32 a.m.

100% signed

Posted: //
May 6, 2017, 12:15 p.m.

Updated //
May 6, 2017, 12:18 p.m.

I'm afraid the suits see a need to have a credit sink and think that this won't matter when things go live.

The developers and community managers have probably gone hoarse trying to represent us, and it has fallen on deaf ears. Look at the uproar over maintenance after a disconnect. The suits don't care.

The only thing that might get the suits attention would be a general strike where people, en masse, stop playing and stay on the forum so that they can be seen as striking. If you could get enough people to stop playing, it might present a case. The current issue of people dropping off individually isn't working.

definition: suits = managers, or those who provide the development funding.

FWIW, I won't be trying to play before Onslaught returns and would be happy to join a strike. I've about 90 hours actually playing ( not counting waiting ) and 9 tier 4 ships that I can now play (not counting 5 hero tier 4 ships). I find the maintenance at tier 4 egregious.

Posted: //
May 8, 2017, 12:32 p.m.


Posted: //
May 9, 2017, 11:18 p.m.

considering how the game seems to have a constant population of a few hundred (which for most games = dead) i'm not sure a strike would even help. The only reason it hasn't died completely yet is because the devs are still releasing stuff and people can still (kinda) get games. How long that will last is anyone's guess.

-Citizen Soldier -"Do not bring forth an argument that can be disproved with a 10 minute google search."

Posted: //
May 12, 2017, 8:27 a.m.

Updated //
May 12, 2017, 8:30 a.m.

I can accept being limited in my rate of progression. I can accept a credit sink.

But implement it in such a way that doesn't upset the players each time they play the game.

If you want us to autopay the maintenance cost, then just manipulate the credit income or cost of ships, which achieves the same thing.
Increase the prices of ships, put in more ships in the future, do whatever you want, just don't put in a maintenance cooldown of 1 week.

If for some highly intelligent reason you must punish us for playing, and must have a cooldown for higher tier ships, one hour is the max we can tolerate. Currently it takes 1 week to get out of maintenance, and I question the sanity of the individual who made that decision.

It's upsetting when I can't play the ships I paid for, and it's upsetting when I'm on elite status and still get negative income. It's like paying for a World of Warcraft subscription, and being told you can't level up past level 20.

Having this mechanic upsets paying customers, as well as non-paying players, and it generates a significant amount of negativity regarding the game. It's so sad when I see so much hard work and content being put into the game, but this mechanic pushing players away.

Posted: //
May 12, 2017, 9:43 a.m.

Having now played around with Veteran some more I'm feeling the pain from the maintenance costs even more. While I'd love to just be remaining in my fleet of T3s, gaining XP towards OBs and T4s, I can't afford it yet, so I keep swapping back and forth between Recruit and Vet.

I really don't understand how players could be expected to maintain a healthy Veteran queue, or any Legendary queue at all, as things stand. I've had everything from matches where I earned 2300 credits to as little as 200 credits, after a 6 minute wait for a match, in Veteran. That just feels bad. In Recruit I can manage top 3 easily every match and earn consistently, but I feel like my XP is wasted at this point, as I have nearly every T2 fully researched.

I do understand a need for resource sinks in F2P games, but this is not a very good implementation of one. I for one really like that now you can swap around more of the ships' cosmetics, and I'd bet I'm not alone in enjoying that sort of thing. People pay money consistently in other games for purely cosmetic items, best offered in large varieties and low individual costs. Give players a ton of choices for ship cosmetics, make them affordable, and people will waste money on them all day, and not feel bad. Forcing players to feel like they need Elite status just to progress in the game and play higher tiers has more negative impact than potential for profit, in my opinion.

"I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you."

Posted: //
May 12, 2017, 3:26 p.m.

I also agree with the comments in this topic. Maintenance cost is one of the few bad elements in this game. Please remove it.

Posted: //
May 12, 2017, 6:16 p.m.

Updated //
May 12, 2017, 6:17 p.m.

While I agree with the concept of a resource sink in theory, I believe that the execution, in Dreadnought, is flawed.

In any vehicle shooter, or shooter in general, it is important to have some sort of resource sink. In Dreadnought, this is important simply for the reason of countering the proliferation of high-tier ships. Tier 5, and less-so tier 4, are intended to be the "endgame" tiers. Without some source of resource sink, these tiers will begin to be flooded with waves of all players, great and terrible. This would also make the lower tiers serve no purpose in playing then.

However, maintenance costs, in their current form, are simply an example of fairly poor execution. In their current state, losing a single battle in a tier 4 or tier 5 can severely harm you. This is not fun and is extremely frustrating to experience.

As such, I propose an alternative to maintenance costs: match entry costs. The way I which this would work would be that, in order to enter a match, a player would pay a flat low-to-moderate entry cost in order to enter the match with the selected fleet, with the cost being dependent on the average tier of the fleet (1 tier-3 would incur a higher cost than 1 tier-3 and 1 tier-2). The costs would range from approximately 150 credits with a tier-2, to approximately 600 credits at tier 5. This would ensure that some limitation exists to credit progression in a tier-5, while also ensuring that players are not severely punished for losing a match in a tier-5.

Corvettes are balanced, I swear!

Posted: //
May 13, 2017, 8:52 a.m.

Updated //
May 13, 2017, 8:53 a.m.

Maint costs are no credit-sink, they are a soft-paywall. With soft meaning you can also grind creds in recruit or veteran with lower tier ships, reducing maint or having none in recruit.

The game boils down to an abo-system you do not have to pay, as you can avoid it via grinding. So a free-player can access everything, but has to spend a lot more time, or be a good to very good player.

If you make negative creds, averaged not per game, then this is a problem of the matchmaker or the low population.

Recruit Engineer

This forum is restricted, posts cannot be made.