Xerox1231#3200 posted (#post-85400)

The tech trees seem to be a well-intentioned system, albeit poorly implemented.

In the low tiers, players are forced to play either a destroyer (tank), artillery cruiser (damage), or tactical cruiser (healer). The benefit is that it allows new players to be introduced to one of the 3 "roles" within the game. However, it also locks players wanting to progress to specific classes behind other classes that they usually have no intention of playing. Or you could have what Wargaming uses (forcing new players to play [insert well-rounded tank/plane/ship here] before progressing to other lines). My suggestion would be to have tier 1 versions of every ship.

Progress into a specific class is exactly what players are not meant to do, they are meant to have a balanced fleet of five distincts roles/builds. That's 90% of the reason of existence of the tech tree.

Destroyers are no tanks at all. Actually the game doesn't work on the Triad.

Systematically placating a scheme coming from other games that is not this game's is half the problems that are felt in those fora and why devs don't bother to respond again and again, because there's no point. Furthermore to beta testers. It's a counter-point, beta testing the feelings is part of a beta test.

Also, you have all main classes on tier 2 that is really not far in the tech tree at all. Like two days into. I played lightly and unlocked fully all the tier 2 in a meager week.

Maintainance costs are designed to prevent bad players from entering the higher tiers, but also punish players for taking damage, a.k.a. not hiding cloaked in a corner.

As they are right now, they are meant for players to not only play in the highest tiers and populate the middle ones.

The combination of this and broadsides seems kinda scarrily imbalanced.

At least this one is not a copy/paste from Fractured.

Making this drain power or only available during power to weapons order could be interesting, but isn't it what's already happening when weaponing up when thinking of it (except the facing)?

Merdoc#1195 posted (#post-83094)

I find the lack of finer game mechanics in this game rather strange.

For example (since the devs are so fond of Warthunder), there are no critical damages, which would force you to retreat and maybe stand still for repairs or need to seek a healer.

As far as I know there aren't even weakspots on ships that you have to care about or can exploit.

Except dead angles. More damages is not really something that would balance this game.

And seeing how bulky they are, the ships are anyway built around not being weak-in-some-spots.

And also, it's not an obligated mechanic in any game.

As for critical damages - they could be fun, but unfair (random) and you're in a ship that can rebuild its own armor alone anyway, criticals are somewhat behind the specialized weapons.

Additionally, you can't target/damage individual modules. Neither engines, guns, launch bays, broadside guns, missile bays nor the deck.

You have modules for that. They specifically emulate critical damages.

Also, it seems there is little to no consideration which side you present to your enemy, as you can only ever fire X- amount of guns, no matter how many could actually turn towards the enemy. A missed opportunity I think. Although here we have broadside guns, which is the only situation in which you would ever present it. Otherwise you're just always a needlessly bigger target.

Except for all the ships that have fixed firing arcs you mean ?

Except for the broadsides mechanics you mean ?

As for the drain/weapon breaker/ slowdown ordnances, I find them horribly dull.

Give Dreadnoughts timed EMP bursts.

Give dreadnoughts and snipers Ion cannons. (similar to siege mode)

Just... something that requires some input from the player, some consideration to take, some risks to balance.

Now, I might be wrong about this, but 2.0 prevents me from gaining any hands on experience with the higher tier ships.

Like, modules ?!

As the game is right now, I would even argue that it doesn't lend itself well to any of my gripes above. It's a rather simple brawler if you break the game down to its core. Adding nuanced mechanics would scare off the casual player who just wants a quick round of fun. DN attempts a weird split between capital ship combat and third person action brawler.

As chess is a simple moving-wood-pieces game and every card game is a simple shuffling-cards game.

Regardless, this topic is just something that sprung to my mind and I decided to share it.

Okay. But you're sure you're not advocating an entirely other game ? A naval simulation actually ?

I don't see any reason to sell ships in this game. I'm astonished to see resources devoted to adding that in the game. You always need low level ships because of the maintenance costs.

I do think we're not getting enough credits (actually for an indirect reason: i'm okay with the maintenance but only if we'd get all the modules around tier 3 with according power levels) but the only way to have multiple tiers ahead in xp is to "cheat ahead" your level with money, so, actually, the game is being especially fair to people not using money in the case you're speaking of. In the atm build, you're supposed having too much xp and the credits are the limiting factor, by far.

For me the real problem of the game as it is are the game possibilities unlocked behind maintenance. nearly no one would be (seriously and reasonably) whining if you'd get all the modules and ship categories at tier 3 and could play at that level; playing against tier4 but at the cost of them paying more money and giving you more points when killed (what's already happening as it seems) is somewhat fair.

Let the tier5 be for hardcore leet nerds with too much real world money and occasional forays into leetdom of us reasonable players.

13thMidnight#8527 posted (#post-82480)

Its a shame that the lore prohibits from using most of your guns but I suppose I'll have to keep grinding to higher tiers if I want to use most of them. Still think it would add an extra layer where players have to think about positioning and flanking rather than being able to shoot 360 degrees

BALANCE damnit.

And some ships have limited arcs of fire.

lethal61#8149 posted (#post-82620)

obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-81365)

Yet another reason for supporting the petitions asking for significant changes to the grind?

If successful in pushing the devs to actually realise things need to change, the grind might not be as harsh and/or game-breaking by the time we move to open beta

Yeah you know something is way off when your unlocking ships way faster than you can buy them.

Not if you're supposed to make choices, and we are.

Lymceh#8349 posted (#post-82389)

Theobald#3611 posted (#post-82187)

The devs don't want you to play only one well-built and well-played ship, they want you to play a FLEET, in which you have more than one role of ship and more than one ship, to balance your own team on the fly and adapt to the enemy line-ups and loadouts.

Given the current state of the grind, and the length of time it takes to unlock and kit up a competitive T3 or T4 ship, it sure as heck feels like the Devs want us to go for one main ship... best I've gotten to so far is the Pelos and I'm already feeling defeated by the grind to the Harwich; I really don't feel like grinding for the other high-tier ships I used to enjoy playing because I have to go through ships that I never felt comfortable with, as well as weaker versions of those ships that lack the key modules that made them fun to play.

1- You think mainly that because you don't want to play a lesser version of a ship, only the best, and that's specifically something the devs don't want you to do (reason for maintenance in the game)

2- That's not a problem about the progress tree, only the grind values themselves, and can easily be changed by convincing the devs with MODERATE POINT OF VIEWS that don't simply say to them they are doing fecal matter in everything.

Also, we're beta testers. No players. Not supposed to have nothing but fun. And, something else nearly everybody here is having difficulties to comprehend, we're not here mainly for our opinions, but raw data we're throwing at them.

Odin#5262 posted (#post-81842)

The same man,would spent almost the same amount of time,to get the same ship,before the new progression tier system.Cause koshei was unlocked at higher Captain lvl anyway.

To be fair, in the previous progression system, you could start with any one of the 5 classes; you could use a Tac (Aion) to work your way up to a Koschei, which is a progression that makes sense. Being forced to play artillery into Koschei, though? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes it does.

Just explained it up here.

Odin#5262 posted (#post-81842)

Nyxborn#5578 posted (#post-81423)

This is also a great example on why to toss out the Tech trees. This man has spent a total 19 hours grinding an ARTILLERY just to unlock a Koschei, A Heavy Tactical Cruiser class ship. This makes no sense in the slightest in any way possible.

The same man,would spent almost the same amount of time,to get the same ship,before the new progression tier system.Cause koshei was unlocked at higher Captain lvl anyway.

I will have to agree though about having the ability to unlock ships as Koshei,Dola,Jutland etc,from alternative paths on progression/manufacturers tree.

From a game designer pov - i really think every class (and actually every module) should be unlocking at tier 3.

Just moving the tree one tier up. Even if it's leaving a hollow slot on some tier 4 for the moment.

Loon#9240 posted (#post-81853)

A lot of you seem to be missing the point of a Beta. We are meant to be testing the game. If you thought you were going to get a leg up on new players when it goes live you have seriously missed the point.

Yes the grind is not fun and does need some serious attention but that is what we are here for. Tell them!