Yllaina Rho



The community has their answer. They are not removing the progression system and that's a decision that makes sense to me, even if 95% of the forums will continue to do nothing but complain about it and claim the game is dying. It's a business decision and one that makes sense in the context of the game they are making. They need some way to encourage to people to spend money, and this is what they've chosen. Be glad the grind isn't nearly as cancerous as it is in WoT. So that whole discussion may as well end because it leads nowhere and helps nobody. As for getting vague answers? Most of this community should be glad they're getting ANYTHING given how ridiculous, obnoxious, and toxic half this forum is. Those vague answers, while they may not make you feel good, are what you're going to get when most of the community has no real coherent argument or just shouts the same point a thousand times over. Be glad that there is at least some motion to try to get more devs to bring info to the forums.

Specialka#3523 posted (#post-98509)

Same deal for the tech tree. Why should we play a support cruiser then a sniper cruiser to get to a corvette and destroyer?

In wows for exemple, yes you have to play Cruiser and Dreadnought before getting to Carrier, but it is fast.

And in this game, as you need to have every role in a team for it to work, this means players will play their Artillery cruiser despite the team having no healer because he would not gain xp for his snipers.

Note that you can get (at least) one of every type of ship by T-2 and that there are 5 spaces in each fleet (one for each ship category). It also takes a total of about three hours to get every T-2 in the game. Sounds fairly reasonable to me. Sure, to get to some lines it takes more time but each of those lines has a counterpart in another of the tech trees accessible right out of the gate so it's not a big deal. Having to wait till T-4 to get an Oberon destroyer would be a pain, if you couldn't get Jupiter Arms destroyers from T-1 aaaall the way to 5. (All that being said this isn't really the forum for this discussion, but this forum seems to just be another toxic cryfest forum anyway soooo...)

Here's the thing about developing a game and keeping the community up to date. The devs can't tell us every little thing they're planning, because they are not yet 100% certain on those things. A lot of ideas likely get thrown around, elaborated upon to some extent, worked on a bit but then scrapped. They will only give out information on changes they are CERTAIN they will implement, as to give every little note on every little thing they're working on would A, take forever and B, be extremely unreliable as a lot of that stuff will never make it to the game. The best they can do is say "we're working on (some vague idea)" because that's all they can say for sure. The second a change is certain to be implemented, they post it. When they see the community has a widespread concern, they try to tell us as much as they can. What people forget here is that the devs gain NOTHING by withholding information. There isn't some big conspiracy about keeping the community in the dark because that accomplishes nothing for the company. The devs watch the community (have you seen the volume of posts made by Miguel?) but they only have so much available information and repeated toxicity towards the game, devs, or other players (all things which happen CONSTANTLY on these forums) won't change any of that. It just makes this whole space feel dark and negative. That's my reasonable theory, anyway (I'm not a dev and can't speak on their behalf but does it not make sense to you?).

Look, for a game like this a grinding mechanic is pretty important. It's not vital but it works for several reason. One, it is a good way to make money which, as a relatively new, currently understaffed, growing game development company with multiple major projects underway, I think we can all agree they need. Two, it adds a learning curve to the game which (when properly executed, and I believe that the current dreadnought system, while not perfect, is pretty good) helps new players enjoy the game right from the get-go and then develop their skills as they progress into the more advanced stages of the game. Three, it reflects the reality that some vehicles are just objectively better than others (IE technology ADVANCES. This game may be entirely fictional but to me it wouldn't make much sense for every ship to be on a level playing field, and if they were, there would need to be a large variety of superficially different ships to play in order to maintain some semblance of diversity). There are many ways to go about making free-to-play games but for a vehicle-based arcade-style arena shooter game, the tier-based progression model is a pretty solid option.

For a game to remain free-to-play at least some sacrifices need to be made by the players. League is subject to constant additions of new characters and content at HUGE expense to the game's balance, WoT is subject to the near-necessity of buying premium vehicles and gold ammo just to make money at any point beyond the middle tier (plus grinding eternities through garbage vehicles because what is balance?), and Dreadnought requires grinding. Relatively enjoyable grinding. Given that the game is in closed beta (and only recently after a major overhaul to progression) it is pretty well balanced and enjoyable at all tiers. Sure it can get frustrating having to wait to progress but at least the waiting isn't torture.

Again, the new system is still NEW. VERY NEW. It is SUBJECT TO CHANGE and it WILL BE CHANGED, almost certainly for the better. Coming on to the forums and complaining isn't necessarily bad- in fact it's essential to get the players' voices to the devs for feedback. But coming here and constantly saying "Everything here sucks", "The game is dead/dying (it's not, btw)", or that "The devs are terrible" isn't helping anybody because it is not remotely constructive. Pointing out SPECIFIC flaws you see in the game, perhaps giving a reasonable possible solution, IE constructive criticism, helps the devs improve the game. If they see that a sufficient proportion of their gamer base is unsatisfied with a change, they will either try something else or revert it. It's pretty simply: they're not stupid. They won't continue doing something that is directly and provably harming the game and its play rate. The fact that progression 2.0 is still going indicates that, despite your constant moaning, the game is still doing well. MOST happy players don't visit the forums. Some do, but more people who have something to complain about will come here to do so. Therefore, the proportion of angry people on the forums DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE OVERALL POPULATION OF THE PLAYER BASE. They know that not everyone will like every change, and they know that people will quit the game. But if you want to actually improve the game? Be constructive. Be helpful. If you see something you don't like, don't just cry "THE GAME IS DEAD" and leave. Indicate your grievance, stick around for a bit, and at least check back once in a while to see if it's being improved.

And also why is everyone shouting at Miguel? His job is literally right there- Community Specialist. He's not a member of the game development team. He doesn't make game decisions. He tells us what is told to him and just tries to assuage the feelings of the butthurt people on the forums. He can't tell us every change ever to be made because many, if not most, of the proposed changes are never implemented. They are made, played around with by the devs and then, only when it is CERTAIN that it is what they want to do, they release that information. That means that we aren't informed of many changes until shortly before they occur because even the devs aren't sure about them yet, because if they let that info out then decided not to do a bunch of it everyone would be rattled again and the updates would no longer be reliable. The best that Miguel can do is to say that they're working on whatever general thing and that we should look forward to it. If he knew EXACTLY what changes were going to be implemented, do you not think we'd be informed? There is literally NO reason to keep the community in the dark about that info. So quit shouting at the devs to tell you EVERY CHANGE they EVER intend to make. Even they don't know for sure.

People realize that tiering and grinding are an essential part of the free to play business model, right? They need to encourage you to spend money somehow and at least they don't do so by having OP premium vehicles or the ever-so-popular premium ammo. Balance is not perfect yet, but the game is still in CLOSED BETA, and is constantly being changed. The balance is already a heck of a lot better than World of Tanks, and the grinding is certainly 1000x less cancerous. In Dreadnought, early tiers are fun and engaging and no ship feels useless (or even underpowered) to me; everything has strengths and weaknesses and any ship can be made to work if you know how to use it effectively. The customization and ability to personalize your ships for your individual playstyle is fantastic, but that very mechanic means it will TAKE TIME to get the game perfectly sorted out (my one real wish would be to have access to a couple more options at T2/T3).

I don't know how many of you have actually played games like World of Tanks and War Thunder, but the early tiers in those games are ATROCIOUS to play- you can do little to nothing to anybody even one tier higher than yourself and when you finally make it out of that torture it's almost impossible to make any money whatsoever past middle tiers because you have to spend so much on repairs and ammo. In Dreadnought, from the very first game I played in the Agosta, I felt like I was making an impact on the outcome of every game and that I was being rewarded for skilled play as opposed to abusing poorly thought out game mechanics (IE World of Tanks) or taking advantage of low-skilled players (IE War Thunder). Also, note that I am a VERY skilled player in all of these games- I was top 0.1% statistically in WoT but I still quit because of poor balancing, linear gameplay, and garbage grinding. I have yet to play a ship in Dreadnought that I disliked playing so much that I didn't want to grind it out, something which happens CONSTANTLY in other such games.

My only real complaints are A: Playing Tactical Cruisers makes disproportionately low money, B: Profitability should be increased at least a little in higher matchmaking brackets and experience gain should be a little more on-par with credit gain, by lowering XP (a bit) and increasing credits (a bit)- in the current system it is easier to get the XP with your ship at whatever tier then grind out cash at T2 as you get just as much money and can pub-stomp low levels, C: Goliath Torpedoes and the Bomb Catapult could use a bit of a nerf (as much fun as it is, and I do it CONSTANTLY, cloaking in the Furia and one shotting almost any T-2 in the game is a little busted), and D: The servers (obviously) suck, but I'm not a computer technician or whatever so I don't know what the cause of that is or what the possible solution is. Again, given that the game is in CLOSED BETA, I think it is doing quite well and this is coming from a person who has quit similar games due to poor balancing or bad grinding.

As a side note, I feel like the skillcap on this game and the diversity of gameplay (which will only get better with time), coupled with how sexy the game is, give it great potential as a competitive game, and one which I would gladly watch for tournaments and clan wars (should such a feature ever be implemented).

Finally started matchmaking- can anyone else get in?

UPDATE: Found a game.

Can we not gripe and bicker about people being ungrateful? I think we all agree that the game is quite good (I, personally, love it), especially for a closed beta, but the fact is many of us have been completely unable to play for several hours and little to nothing has been said by the devs to address that. The last dev post about server condition I can find is from two days ago saying there are minor server crashes lasting "10-15 minutes". Five hours is NOT 10-15 minutes.

We get that we sound angry. We are. We also get that the game is still closed beta and so issues are just part of the package. But you getting on here and telling us to shut up about a MAJOR ISSUE isn't helping anyone. Now, if someone comes on and starts cussing the devs out and being a total assbucket, THEN you can call them out. We, here on this forum, are being pretty reasonable and just want some kind of explanation as to what's going on and, if possible, an ETA on when the game will be playable.

Both my friend and I get the same issue so I imagine it's a (near?)-universal bug. At least it's minor- I'm getting more issues with being unable to matchmake.

I've been getting this "Matchmaking error" for 3 hours now- I tried restarting, flushing DNS, and disabling firewall but no luck. I can log in and look around fine but when I try to match up it just gives me the error, and if I relog any changes I made to my lineup reset which tells me that I'm not communicating with the server beyond login. I had the problem yesterday but it would resolve after 5-15 minutes so it wasn't a big deal. Is anybody able to play? I mean is the server itself partially down or is the problem limited to just some players?

Update: My lineup and loadout changes saved this time so the servers aren't totally down, but I still can't match.