You should go to Hangar, select the Hero Ships, and actually load that loadout. Atm that might not make sense, but in the future you could have more than 5 (barring 2.0 changes), and you only have 5 slots. If you can't select it there, that's a job for customer support.

Thank you for this, I currently just don't have the time and motivation to watch it all.

Nice to hear the visuals aren't forced upon us.

There should indeed be aim assist.

In the form of centering the guns on a point that is on or in the flight path of a hostile ship near the reticle - distance, if you will, as the guns aren't aligned with the camera.

I don't think it should actually change your aim direction, or at least not much.

It's way weaker than an Alpha, in any case.

Snipers don't have it, but with their zoom camera they don't need it anymore, either.

Now that is certainly some good insight on the Nox. Sadly, it might be a bit too much insight to cram it into a general guide on artillery, especially seeing how different it is to the other two ships.

I'll update my Overview over the weekend, I'll see what I can fit in. Still not a fan of it. smile

Hah! Nah, I didn't. I'm honoured by the question, though. I don't play other classes enough to be in that position.

Thanks for the (mostly positive) feedback so far, everybody!

I'll upload a new version over the weekend.

Ships will be divided by manufacturer, so there will be a T5 Aion (Oberon) and a T5 Koschei (Akula).

Edit: Fixed fluff mixup.

Regarding systems without tiers: We've seen Mechwarrior, so saying "it's never been done" isn't the truth either.

I agree we might be seeing things too negative, but when someone's blatantly copying WoT, assuming it'll be like WoT isn't that unreasonable an assumption. In a vacuum, that may just be grounds for mild concern, but people like the game, and fear that they won't like the new one as much. I know I do.

No stat boosts.


There's no right or wrong.

If depends on what you want to do.

F.Ex I fly my Kreshnik as a brawler similar to ram or missile destroyers. With Disruptor Pulse, I can prevent enemy disrupts and drains for a while, I have enough health and speed to leave if I eat a disruptor missile, and then against most mid-ranged team comps, I can Armour Amp, park in front of their healer, and rip it to shreds with Plasma and Main guns.

Both Autorepair and Afterburners can get me out alive afterwards.

However, this build is absolutely helpless against most good corvettes; Main guns are hard to aim especially at a distance, I'm not particularly fast, I don't have the range bolt guns afford, and most often no mobility items. A heavy Bomber of sorts.

It's a completely different playstyle to what Patchouli suggested, and both work (did his in Alpha).

I would imagine for Anti-Corvette Duty I'd take Nav Expert on a Fulgora - Or just my specialized Sniper Loadout. As an AC, dishing out 50 k before trading one for one with a corvette tends to do more good than the corvette does.

Schön zu sehen, das Spieler, die wenig Englisch sprechen, hier jetzt auch einen Ansprechpartner haben.

I've already detailed my opinions on the new system here in an answer to rickdeckard, and my thoughts on repairs in this thread, and I think reposting it would be unseemly; My opinion hasn't actually changed with this new information.

Just one new point, now that that has been detailed:

If you have module trees for every ship, would you consider adding a few that could be unlocked for all ships of that tier?

No matter how useful they actually are, I like the option to choose and create whacky combinations.

And I've laid out my thoughts on fleet repair in a rather detailed thread

The more I look at this, the more I get the feeling you're sacrificing "gameplay" for "progression". :/

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