FORUMS


The tier System in 2.0



Posted: //
Aug. 11, 2016, 6:39 p.m.



With all this negativity, i think i should add just one positive comment about the tier System:

I like tech trees, and tiers.
The ability to get more powerful vessels, it feels like actually gaining something, it feels like progress.
It can be very rewarding to finally unlock that "final step", to swich to a ship of the same type, but with better playability, abilites and more variety in playstyle.

It gives you a feeling of sucess and accomplishment.
I personally think that's more rewarding than grinding 200 hours just to unlock another Variation that isn't better than what you had all along.
(Example: You start with a fast nimble dreadnaught, the Invictus, an unlock the heavy one at the end, but both ships are equal in power level, they may be made for totally different tasks, but they fight on the same level.)

When i look at horizontal "progression", i can't help but think:

"So...the first ship you get at rank one can match up and win against the last ship you get at Rank XX."
What's the point?

I do realise that especially the fanbase that likes this game and plays it for a while is probably going to disagree with me. But me personally?
I don't like horizontal "progression" systems.

I think they do the right thing with 2.0.
With tiers, when you are "at the top" you have something very different from your starting Vessel, you gained something.

I like that.


Posted: //
Aug. 12, 2016, 2:03 a.m.


Updated //
Aug. 12, 2016, 2:05 a.m.

Nothin_#6360 posted (#post-42233)

"So...the first ship you get at rank one can match up and win against the last ship you get at Rank XX."
What's the point?

The point is the first ship I would postulate it to be similar to the Athos:
Easy to maneuver
Fast projectile speed
Good engage range <7km
Capable of engaging targets in a 360 degree arc
Mediocre damage

This ship is easy to use because it is simple to control and can easily land shots on enemy ships due to its extremely good projectile speed.

The later ships that would be unlocked in my mind be extremely difficult to use but have far greater combat potential based on skill, this could be realized in certain ways:
Cons:
Limited gun firing arcs
Limited range
Fast straight line maneureing, extremely slow turn speed or vice versa: i.e. needs players to have good spatial awareness and control and positioning.
Small energy reservoir
Low energy regeneration
Bad shield mitigation

Pros:
Extreme projectile damage: gattling rail gun/antimatter cannon couple with Slow projectile speed or accelerating projectiles or spread projectiles making it good for large targets but poor for small(these are just ideas mind you)
low clip size, slower reloads
Increased power to weapon efficiency
More synergistic modules between different ship classes. (Imagine a supression style like destroyer that fires primary rounds that paints targets with a radioactive isotope that allows missiles to have smarter tracking increased velocity and explode for further damage when impacted with missiles. This could be paired with a missile repeater ship that fires unguided rockets as a primary that would now track and chase.) These are just ideas I have come up with in 1min of brainstorming, I am sure the devs at dreadnought would be much more creative.

Pros should be paired with cons to balance the late game ships but give them a higher theoretical dps while making it harder to actual reach that dps by making it SKILL BASED i.e. difficult to use either by requiring teamwork or by making it just plain impossible to use well unless you have 200IQ.

There are many ways to balance horizontally so that PLAYER SKILL is the most of the governing factor, where the earlier ships would require little skill and energy management and positioning and spatial awareness, the higher tiers should be PUNISHING when player skill is low and lacking teamwork. But BRUTALIZING when used to perfection and in conjunction with a competent team.

My 2cents.


9th on August leaderboard.
3rd on September leaderboard.

Solo/duo queuer


Posted: //
Aug. 12, 2016, 7:14 a.m.


Updated //
Aug. 12, 2016, 7:15 a.m.

Nothin_#6360 posted (#post-42233)

...

You would have exactly the same that you had at start - just a picture / number / name changed - but when all elements within one tier are equal to eachother - then the relative progression is 0.


Posted: //
Aug. 12, 2016, 9:42 a.m.



Well they are pretty much copy and pasting the model from world of tanks so we have a pretty good idea of whats going to happen. Some of us (including me) are just waiting for beta 2.0 to see if its going to be worth sticking around for. As for ship progression I kind of agree and disagree. Unlocking new things is fun but from a truly competitive standpoint having variants of the same ship with different stats tends to kill any serious competitive nature of the game because it can cause to much rock/paper/scissors type of play.


Posted: //
Aug. 12, 2016, 2:28 p.m.



WarViper1337#8868 posted (#post-42263)

Unlocking new things is fun but from a truly competitive standpoint having variants of the same ship with different stats tends to kill any serious competitive nature of the game because it can cause to much rock/paper/scissors type of play.

I gotta agree with this. Some of the best games just give you the roster of ships, people, guns that are ready to play. It's true lack of unlocks or incentives to keep playing are a real problem. Titanfall had a solid foundation but didn't have enough player investment to give it legs. It's rare to make a game like say... Counter-Strike anymore. Where the merits of it's gameplay carry it alone.

Even Overwatch has an elaborate unlock system for cosmetics that feels rewarding... but they also weren't free to play. On the surface of it... I don't like the dividing of the player base. That's my real complaint. I feel like certain tiers will be overlooked or to much of a pain to play. IE repair costs keeping you out of T5 or something.

Sorry for using CoD as an example but they have similar modes... and the easy modes always dominate the charts. So I see T1-3 being quite popular with T4/5 being less populated. Heck almost any hopper in games shows a similar break down. The more skilled based modes have the small to near extinct populations...

People just like to pick up and play... and I feel T4 and T5 just wont be on their menu. Hopefully I'm terribly wrong and a competitive community comes out of the woodwork... and the game survives on all the other guys hanging out in T1-3.


Posted: //
Aug. 12, 2016, 5:40 p.m.


Updated //
Aug. 12, 2016, 5:42 p.m.

Well Adavanter, your fears are the problems the developers need to face and overcome.
If they manage to make T5 a goal people strive for, and once you reach that goal manage to give players a long time reward for continuing to play, they should be good.
And if they give us some kind of motivation to also keep playing lower Tiers, it'd be great.
I just hope they do the right thing.


Posted: //
Aug. 12, 2016, 11:02 p.m.



The concerns voiced by Adavanter are what bother me about a tier system.

Perhaps I haven't played enough pvp oriented or "pvp from the start" games for fair comparison, but it seems to me that pvpers are a minority of the gaming population. So dividing that population up even further seems like a bad idea.

And it seems that the "incentive" the devs have in mind to get people to play other tiers is that you'll wreck your ships in a tier and essentially be "forced" to play another tier while they recover or perhaps to avoid breaking your bank with repair costs. I don't see that as a favorable incentive. It also depends on what the differences are between tiers, are customization options limited or is everything just toned down to be less effective? And did I grind to get all that epic stuff at high tier only to be able to play it a little bit each day before getting relegated to a lower tier?

I like the ships being in the same pot together. One is not necessarily better than the other, they just support different tactics/play styles. I can see what the devs are saying about it being easier to balance the player experience if certain powers like assault warp are only available in higher tiers, but my question to that is, are they suggesting that only skilled players who can handle going up against assault blink will be in that tier or is that tier going to have such padded HP that the current assault blink doesn't hit as hard? Cause the latter could easily be balanced in the current system of "different but equal" by simply adjusting the damage to current hp levels, (Suggestion: If assault blink doesn't already, it could hit for a percentage of health rather than a static number so that it is equally effective against all vessels and not OP against any one in particular) and the former is unlikely given that progression to high tier will most likely be available to any nublet who grinds hard enough or opens their wallet wide enough.

The one thing I do like about their proposed change is the ability to focus your development on what you are interested in. For example, being able to focus on unlocking the type of healboat you want to play, with your ideal modules and briefings. If this system actually lets you get to what you want to play, how you want to play it, in a more expedient manner, I certainly would have appreciated that when I started the game.

I am also very curious about what the tier system means for hero ships. I know the devs said you can play hero ships to gain "universal" xp to put toward whatever ship you want, but does that mean hero ships have no repair costs or down time? What tier will they play in? Are there now going to be hero ships of different tiers? Will universal xp be tier specific? Must play tier 3 hero ship to get tier 3 universal xp to put to your tier 3 ship?

I quite like the aesthetics they have been showing off for different tiers of ships, but those cosmetic unlocks could be reason enough to invest time and or money into the game.

So, while I am looking forward to the new ships and new looks and the ability to get where you want to go more quickly with your ships and build, and I see the potential problems the devs are trying to address with the tier system, I just don't see how the tier system actually addresses those problems, particularly not in a "better" way than the current system could with careful balancing (powers will have to be balanced within their tier anyway), and it seems to add an unnecessary degree of complication and segregation to the game.

Additionally, I feel that many of the "problems" with the current system would actually be better addressed by a larger player base than with a new tier system. People complaining about how OP something is, be it a ship, a power, or a player, are probably under that impression because they've been thrown into matches with more skilled/experienced, higher level players that they would not have been facing off against were the population simply large enough for the matchmaker to not throw nublet guppies into the shark tank.

Even then, part of the game is learning to adapt to the challenges you face. Sure you might get roflstomped the first few times you encounter something, but learn how to block it or evade it, or take it out before it gets into position, or coordinate with your team so someone else can handle it, or switch ships to negate the advantage.

Personally, I think the absolute most important part this game could upgrade/alter to alleviate many of the "problems" is enhancing communication. If this game could actually implement speech to text/text to speech software so that people don't have to take their hands off the controls to communicate with their squad, or had integrated voice chat (though self conscious individuals would likely avoid it, or annoying people might make most disable it, hence the first option being preferable to me). I think that would do so much more for coordination and handling "op" players and ships and modules than anything else they could do.


Posted: //
Aug. 14, 2016, 5:09 a.m.



Nothin_#6360 posted (#post-42233)

With all this negativity, i think i should add just one positive comment about the tier System:

I like tech trees, and tiers.
The ability to get more powerful vessels, it feels like actually gaining something, it feels like progress.
It can be very rewarding to finally unlock that "final step", to swich to a ship of the same type, but with better playability, abilites and more variety in playstyle.

It gives you a feeling of sucess and accomplishment.
I personally think that's more rewarding than grinding 200 hours just to unlock another Variation that isn't better than what you had all along.
(Example: You start with a fast nimble dreadnaught, the Invictus, an unlock the heavy one at the end, but both ships are equal in power level, they may be made for totally different tasks, but they fight on the same level.)

When i look at horizontal "progression", i can't help but think:

"So...the first ship you get at rank one can match up and win against the last ship you get at Rank XX."
What's the point?

I do realise that especially the fanbase that likes this game and plays it for a while is probably going to disagree with me. But me personally?
I don't like horizontal "progression" systems.

I think they do the right thing with 2.0.
With tiers, when you are "at the top" you have something very different from your starting Vessel, you gained something.

I like that.

I agree with you.

I've pretty much stopped playing the game because of the problems I have already posted which I stand by my position. Regardless of whether it is Tier or progression if Match Making sucks you will lose long term growth of the game.

I want to see the game to succeed but I will not spend one dime on a product that is inherently flawed, ripe for abuse.


Posted: //
Aug. 14, 2016, 8:23 a.m.



What I don't get is this: Dreadnought is one of the rare games that is just fun to play on its own right.
The thing driving people to dreadnought is the gameplay, which is great.
The thing driving people AWAY from dreadnought is the progression, which is stupid.

Seriously, is ANYONE here doubting, that the gameplay can stand on its own two feet? This is one of the rare games that is even more fun to actually play than to watch! So for the love of god, I don't get why we need an arbitrary progression system, a method I consider obsolete and proven unsuccessfull by any game that tried using it.

Name me one single pvp game that had major success and uses a (tiered) progression system. Just one. There isn't a single one. There are however numerous games that had major success without such a system. Especially considering the initial promise of a flat progression I find this whole 2.0 business appaling.

Let's think further ahead, let's say they make it through a year with 5 tiers. What happens with the tier 5 people? They get bored and leave. Unless you invent another tier, at which point it gets even worse to balance. Tiering systems do NOT scale at all...

Please go for what is natural to dreadnought, go for the flat system, with cosmetic unlocks. Just make the smart choice, and drop in a few ships every now and then. If you hand out every fitting possible as a hero ship you'll have plenty of stuff to sell. It is deeply unnatural to the gameplay to have these arbitrary unlocks, they HURT the gameplay which is where Dreadnought shines naturally!
And the best? Going for the cosmetic and flat approach you can scale naturally. Look at what Riot is doing with League of Legends, they're doing just fine and make a ton of money. Progression? Nope. Just a simple leveling system that unlocks a few tweaks, nothing major. You can easily play without any points in any tree.

That's what I think. Stop wasting time on stuff Dreadnought sucks at, and use it on the parts where it excells!

Regards,
Imrahil


Posted: //
Aug. 14, 2016, 5:57 p.m.



Imrahil#3251 posted (#post-42386)

What I don't get is this: Dreadnought is one of the rare games that is just fun to play on its own right.
The thing driving people to dreadnought is the gameplay, which is great.
The thing driving people AWAY from dreadnought is the progression, which is stupid.

Seriously, is ANYONE here doubting, that the gameplay can stand on its own two feet? This is one of the rare games that is even more fun to actually play than to watch! So for the love of god, I don't get why we need an arbitrary progression system, a method I consider obsolete and proven unsuccessfull by any game that tried using it.

Name me one single pvp game that had major success and uses a (tiered) progression system. Just one. There isn't a single one. There are however numerous games that had major success without such a system. Especially considering the initial promise of a flat progression I find this whole 2.0 business appaling.

Let's think further ahead, let's say they make it through a year with 5 tiers. What happens with the tier 5 people? They get bored and leave. Unless you invent another tier, at which point it gets even worse to balance. Tiering systems do NOT scale at all...

Please go for what is natural to dreadnought, go for the flat system, with cosmetic unlocks. Just make the smart choice, and drop in a few ships every now and then. If you hand out every fitting possible as a hero ship you'll have plenty of stuff to sell. It is deeply unnatural to the gameplay to have these arbitrary unlocks, they HURT the gameplay which is where Dreadnought shines naturally!
And the best? Going for the cosmetic and flat approach you can scale naturally. Look at what Riot is doing with League of Legends, they're doing just fine and make a ton of money. Progression? Nope. Just a simple leveling system that unlocks a few tweaks, nothing major. You can easily play without any points in any tree.

That's what I think. Stop wasting time on stuff Dreadnought sucks at, and use it on the parts where it excells!

Regards,
Imrahil

Agree with everything you said, AND to add on top of that all the different skins and looks they made for the different tiers of ships could instead be sold as cosmetics for money, I dont get it, seem to me with progression 2.0 they are basically driving away the ppl that the games seemed to be aiming for the the first place, AND limiting potential income sources as well. Seems like a loose-loose situation really

This forum is restricted, posts cannot be made.