If the arties do get a reload boost, it's little enough to not notice it then, i just tried. Same for the other ships (that do get +50% RoF - at least the reload boost is nowhere near +50%).

Of course the Oberon Arty does get RoF, but it's far from the two other arties in gameplay.

I'm pretty sure about the missiles not doing more damages.

Destroyers are tac hunters in the game's scissor/paper/stone.

They are less prone to being useless against all the other classes than said other classes.

They have the best all-around main weapons (power, clip, range, projectile speed, accuracy all above average).

Their nemesis are the dreads (you never can win in a fair fight).


You've got actually one of the only ships that can make an arty go in cover (same max range) - others being other artys and the medium dread.

If the arty could hit you three times, you were not on top of it (Blink out of its fire cone, and especially higher, and it can't target you) except if it was an oberon arty, which can't tree-shot you but is more of a skirmisher.

Were the shots red ? You may have encountered a rare build that doesn't play well, the oberon siege arty.

About playing arty yourself - were you actually in range ?



You can't steal a kill without doing more damage than the other player, so, in short, you can't steal a kill. You've done your part if it's yours.



As far as i've seen there is no damage bonus to missiles for diverting energy to weapons.

It just boosts the main weapons (rate of fire mainly). I'm not even sure there's a boost with artys (because they reload).


It seems to me that Tacs have an easier time getting credits then (farming AI being easier with their weapons, and having no harder time doing the rest)

Dumb question: what's the score for then ? Xp ?

Tacs are very good at killing corvettes and that's their dedicated job, so they get money too.

BTW, you have any proof that partial kills don't count ? Because healers get this a lot.

Survii#8019 posted (#post-88415)

I doubt they will change anything, however, I am extremely this has all happened, why?

I want to pursue a career in game design. This whole experience has been invaluable to me as it has taught me numerous monetisation techniques for free to play games aswell as community interaction etc.

Every cloud has a silver lining smile

Well absolutely, browse this forum and you'll see first hand the reason of the most important rule of pertinent game design:

Don't look at the forum.

It will never be worth the trash you'll find - be it about the way muggles gives you lessons about magic or the insults you get en masse.

Paying the servers and salaries is "greed".

Calling once more the dev team stupid and incompetent will make good stuff happen surely (and it'll probably be explained again it's the job of a holy beta tester).

Obliviondoll and his "special" use of words.

One wonders why he's still playing.

Maybe because once the problems of the game (everybody knows there are some - yeah, need to repeat this part, whiners tend to forget it when more reasonable people have a nuanced approach) are fixed he'll brag around that it was all because of him and his polite, subtle and enlightened methods...

Special mention for the "dwindling playerbase" only constituted of official and serious beta testers.

Can't be both.

obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-86531)

Theobald#3611 posted (#post-86015)


I presume you're old enough to know that there's a magnitude or three more than 196 players in this game and your little thing has absolutely no weight (and ESPECIALLY if there's only 196 of them, because then the devs would just scrap the project), and isn't representative in any dimension, because people that don't care or are not in your conviction are actually not even opening your thread ; but if you want to live in your own delusions...

Congratulations, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding about how statistics work. If the game only has a magnitude of 3x the size of the poll, that brings it WELL into the range of being statistically significant, and as relevant a sample as can be obtained.

You're also ignoring the other information I presented in my post - INCLUDING CONFIRMATION FROM THE DEVS THAT THE PLAYERBASE HAS SHARPLY DECLINED IN THE WAKE OF PROGRESSION 2.0 BEING RELEASED. That is not something up for debate. It came, multiple times, from the devs. The release was objectively and provably responded to by a MASS EXODUS of players from the game.

You want the whole game content that matters to be free. This. will. not. happen.

Source? Because if you're going to try and argue that it doesn't work, well... cosmetics-only monetisation models covering almost every genre of game finding the most successful and long-lasting games and almost all of them AVOID the kind of model this game is moving toward. Additionally, many current success stories in the free-to-play market HAVE TRIED THIS MODEL AND ABANDONED IT because it did to their games exactly what it's doing to Dreadnought - it pushed the playerbase into other games. Now contrast the games with similar models to what Dreadnought's running with, and you'll find near-instant failure after failure in almost every case with extremely rare exceptions where games managed to survive purely on the basis of advantages they had in the market at the time, none of which can be reproduced by Dreadnought. Even the success stories (which, as mentioned, have no valid basis on which to compare to Dreadnought) are in the process of dying in today's market.

There is no valid argument by which this is an optimal free-to-play model, and precious little case for it even being remotely close to viable. There is even less of a case for the claim that the proposed alternatives are a bad idea, because they've been proven time and time again to work better than what the game is heading toward now.

1- Order of magnitude are powers of ten, ya know. "Congratulations, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding about how MATHEMATICS work"

2- Source ? smile It goes both way Mr. Important

3- Ignoring the massive amount of players waiting for the final progression reboot of the open beta to play again

4- Source - it just has been said on another thread by a dev that they are tweaking the progression tree. Not removing it. And you know it, you're on that thread too.

5- I'd really like you to tell us the long list of games that failed for this reason, with proof it was the reason. Real proof, not your usual 'i said it it's a proof" kind.

6- it may come to a shock tp you, but you know, multiplayer games have a finite lifetime. Incredible.

7- So, your really thought-up proposition for the game is "go back to pre2.0 and sell skins" ? Woaaaw. That will work, there's so much certainty to it.

8-I'm pretty sure there's even more "totally free only skins" game that sunk than those that survived. I may make a list once I have the "those that thrived" one.

machinech#5333 posted (#post-86529)

Theobald#3611 posted (#post-86516)

machinech#5333 posted (#post-86285)

Theobald#3611 posted (#post-85927)

fehnrir2314#1894 posted (#post-85918)

As of right now you tech tree is a game killer. You are forcing players into ships they don't want to play for not reason. I should not have to play a vette to open a sniper or play a sniper to open a dred or play a healer to open a destroyer> There is no reason for this and in the end this is going to turn players away. Right now i am considering whether or not i want to stay because i absolutely hate playing against vettes or as one yet i am forced into one to get the ballista. If this is what you intend to release as final tech tree pls tell me now so i can cut my losses

Yes there is a reason. You're meant to play a balanced fleet of five, not a sole ship. That's the only way to make people do it.

It's both for making the players play the whole game (instead of complaining about a little part and projecting it on the whole game - the common feature of any mmorpg for example, in which players often play only one class ever) and balancing matches to avoid the "stuck in a game with 5 of the same ship" syndrome and stuff like that.

You don't like it, and that's your right, but that's not the same as "no reason". An no reason to enforce your vision to everyone either. And you're not obligated to play the game if you don't liek it.

Right .... lets look past the tree's to see the forest. By "no reason" and further reading, it's fairly clear he really means BAD reason. Fairly simple really. Quite frankly when you go about "making" people play your game a certain way... and you get a load of negative feedback... you said it quite clearly yourself, most don't like it, and that's their right. You then wind up with a game that people won't play. Considering the class based nature of this, forcing people to play unrelated content to reach desired content is a fairly unpopular idea. Frankly several combat style games have tried that and ditched it because... crazy, but it wasn't popular. It was an "idea" not a very good one it turns out, but then again not all ideas are winners. Mixed tier combat without a balance pass... also not a good idea. Oh and on a side note... at present, under the current system, it's rather easy to be "stuck" in a game with 5 of the same class because, news flash, people still want to play their desired class. Is that tactically smart, nope... is it best for the team, nope.... does your average gamer out to play his cool class care, nope. Pretty clear at this point they have some things to think over. I'd suggest incentivising their desired goals instead of shackling players with unpopular choices. Since many will simply play something else as work around to such a system. I'll say it again in hopes some dev lays eyes on this.... Firefall... Red5. They too had a really fun game that suffered immensely from...well heck just about every development mistake one can make. However pointedly they often made design choices behind closed doors in a vacuum, then if/when confronted with player disappointment they simply soldiered on touting they knew best. It's a dead game now and a horrid shadow of it's former freedoms in it's early beta days.

All games have rules, it's part of the definition. All game enforce playstyles, it's part of the definition.

As a game designer, again, i say it to you : people not wanting to play the game as it is designed are a plague.

Why ? Because of that problem exactly: instead of playing the part of the game they want, they want the game to become the game they want. Former is totally right, latter is not acceptable.

I'm not working on this game and thus i'm not tied by PR cr*p or something and unable to say it publicly.

Making the 2.0 Progression go away is literally scraping the game as designed.

It's both insulting and unsustainable (because a game like that need a progression grind somewhat, by the way, no one explained how they would make the game viable without - no, skins are not enough).

You're even illustrating the problem that the enforcing is not enough because players are ruining their own matches by STILL making matches with the same classes.

You want them to balance the game so it is possible ?!

When does it stop ?

What players have to do is grow up and be adults, and play the game as it is, with a moderated frustration (see my propositions), or go find a game which better suits their tastes.

And you know what ? Studies have even shown that the whiny players that want everything changed are actually the first to move one on another game, often in mere weeks (recurrent in mmos and free games, even more in free mmos), and so will never make the game sustainable, after making it change in their (now unsustainable) way.

Devs CANNOT listen to them and change everything.

See my proposition (and participate to it if you want) to a possible feasible solution.

For further examples: the whole balance debate (as always). While there are some modules that need tweaking (blast, ...) and some uncorrected stuff (Jupiter arties, Jutlands) nearly all the "OP" complaints are actually about people not playing counters in their fleets. Literally, not playing the game.

Especially with the "OP corvettes" stuff.

Well done... you've absolutely convinced me. If you were a designer on this game, considering the above, you win. I have zero option but to keep my money, walk away, and look for something else. Carrying that further, you have your shiny vision of a game, and like many many other... you can hope some other's like it.

I'm not one of the vocal ones, yet here we are. I apparently get the same "treatment" as anyone else in this thread despite not being one of your "six or seven". I have very few comparative posts. However, and I find this amusing, you seem unable to see a middle ground. You seem to be displacing some anger over unappreciative players onto anyone that's not agreeing with you or the current state of the game in this thread. It's not new, and it isn't a problem for modern games. The problem your illustrating, or creating, basically both has been around forever. If a designer sticks to just his vision alone... it's no crime, but what is designed is done so in a vacuum and must stand as it was created... alone. Might just succeed, might not, fair enough. Then there is a game designed from someone seeking outside input. Odds are slightly better, while both systems have merits and faults, the one seeking input has the possibility to include aspects that a wider range of people may enjoy.

As a kid playing pen and paper D&D a few ages ago... you had two kinds of DM's. The tyrant "my way or you all suffer", and the sort interested in everyone having fun. It's an art form really, being able to change aspects of your game to keep as many interested as possible, without altering it to the point of failure or being too rigid to same effect.

You see people, that were SOUGHT OUT for input and suggestion -some- changes in a game that is already undergoing change in a malleable cycle as a plague? Nice sentiment, one shared by many at EA out california studio there that led to a mass exodus of in house staff. Since we're not bound by any PR cr*p, I propose that a steel fisted designer with an inability to take suggestions that don't concur with their narrow and unpopular vision is just as cancerous and toxic. Chew on that for a bit. For reference, if your the thinking sort... I've assisted in the creation of both kinds of games, those that sought design input and those that did not. I've seen both succeed and fail for various reasons. I'll say again, at the last, the best chances are found in a middle ground. If you find yourself at odds with your sought out input, the problem isn't black and white polarized and only a special sort think the only valid input is the agreeable sort.

If you're not one of the six or seven barking at me, what are you taking personally ?

If you're not one of the people placating and projecting, why are you saying i'm okay with the state of the game, when i'm not ?

And, actually, my whole proposition is about middle ground

And by the way - you're defending the right to been heard of people that want to pull out the progression of a game which has as sole mean to finance itself the partial monetization of its progression. I'm excited to hear your propositions to make money.

Spork#2479 posted (#post-86520)

As a game designer, again, i say it to you : people not wanting to play the game as it is designed are a plague. Why ? Because of that problem exactly: instead of playing the part of the game they want, they want the game to become the game they want. Former is totally right, latter is not acceptable.

This is true in cases where people not wanting to play the game - yet still being vocal - represent a small minority. Let's not set up a strawman here though. DN players who are making forum threads asking for the game to be rolled back before Progression 2.0, are not throwing a tantrum because there's a part of the game they don't like. If it was true that they could "play the part of the game they want," they would while offering suggestions for the other part. However, the whole game is trapped within the all-encompassing tier system. We don't have a "free-play side" to play anything we want, and a "tier side" to play just with the current system. Thus, with the entire game in a state that they don't like, they are protesting (for lack of a better word) en masse.

We have established that players are not whiny children (despite your ad hominem "What players have to do is grow up and be adults"), but beta testers giving their opinions on DN's current state and future direction.

Man, the game is not yo your liking, go away. A designer has the prerogative to design its own game, not you. Not your taste, go play another game.

This is true; however, a designer must also keep in mind that the players are paying for the game. If a lot of players do not like the game, the designer must consider adapting to the players wishes to keep people playing and paying. The straw poll is evidence that players are not satisfied with the game. Out of about 200 people polled, 90% are not in favor of the current system. You have made the claim that this is not representative of the majority of the playerbase; please provide evidence to support your claim. If you have none, then the straw poll must stand as a basis for the debate going forward.

You cannot simply tell people, who don't like the current system, to "go play another game." This is a supermajority of the players - 90% - who would leave if we went strictly by your logic. Your logic being, 'like it or go away (or shut up).' Please correct me if this is not what you meant.

The straw poll is forum-based so it is undoubtedly going to be biased. Let's just be extraordinarily generous and say only 50% of people are dissatisfied with the tier system. On that assumption, half of the game's playerbase does not like DN as it stands. At what point is it no longer a problem with the players, but hubris on the part of the designer? The designer(s) must understand that the game is made for the players, and the players, in this case, just don't like it.

It's not a matter of whining or needing to grow up. Players just don't like Progression 2.0, and telling them - and their wallets - to go away is not a solution.

1- Okay let's see this the other way:

How do you monetize and make a living (and pay the servers) with the 1.1 version ?

2- Nothing has been established. Definitions have been swip-swapped to make them say what they don't say, but beta testing is beta testing, and whatever your faith is, there's no landslide protest.

Do you know how many beta keys have been given ? Activated ?

All you can say is that there are whiners who wants the game to be EASIER, the way it was, with all content unlocked directly, and only matches of the highest tier, which is unsustainable. And the whiners want the game to regress to a form that will not happen. It just has been said on another thread that the devs are changing stuff in the tech tree - not get rid of it, changing stuff. You have to deal with it.

Let's say you all are what you think you are - paid PROFESSIONAL testers who actually knows a lot about game design - not gaming, game design - you're NOT DOING YOUR JOB EITHER.

Your job is then to make notes and propositions on how to make the game better WITHOUT CHANGING CORE MECHANICS. That's what you're paid for.

See this proposition thread for an example

3- Nobody's paying. Devs don't care of whines of people not paying - they don't have yet actual representative complaints. They do care of meaningful polish touches or statistic changes. PR WILL SAY they're listening to you though (and it's not technically a lie - they're just listening).

4- You can't consider the 90% poll in any sense, for two reasons: it was signed by people that got the free stuff shower from the first beta state ; and it was signed by the people that were already coming there because they were disgruntled. That's two reasons that makes the poll totally bogus.

You want a true poll, you wait for them to make it in the launcher and mandatory. That's not white knighting, that's basic statistics.

5- I actually said people that wants a free game with no monetization mechanic and with different core mechanics should go play another game. They are really less numerous than you think - actually, i'm pretty sure that of the 90%, less than 10% would leave the game. And that's less then twenty on the whole beta, as you may calculate.

Strangely the poll wasn't about "i swear on my life i'll quit the game is 2.0 isn't deleted". it's about who doesn't like the changes (and that's nearly everybody, INCLUDING ME, a fact that seems to be forgotten every fourth second).

6- You've no proof that those 200 players are representative of the playerbase, whatever you want to be by clapping your hands. Only a real poll can make that known.

7- MY WHOLE POINT is that being disgruntled (even if it's 90%) doesn't mean the 2.0 has to be deleted (you do remember i'm not satisfied with the actual build, do you ?). There are a lot of means to diminish the grunt and keeping it. See propositions.

8- Whiners don't pay, claiming past mistrust. They even nurture an ecosystem of distrust and no-buy that makes them bad for a freemium. You're better with them away.

Spork#2479 posted (#post-86517)

Which is more "forcing your vision on everyone else":

  1. Having all five classes of ships unlocked from the start.

  2. Having only three classes unlocked from the start, and forcing people to play them to unlock the class they want.

Let's try another:

  1. Players fly whichever ship they want at any time with no strings attached.

  2. Players are forced to build a fleet and fly ships they don't like.

The answer to each is whichever option involves force.

At the end of the day, if players aren't having fun, they're going to leave. We can pretend that making money is the bottomline priority, but if it's not fun no one's going to pay money. As a developer you have to make an enjoyable game that people want to pay for.

I think they believed that corvettes and dreads are too difficult for newbies (both for their more difficult positioning needs)

It's true, but probably not a good idea if you play a lot against other tiers that have all the counters and if you need a week to clear the tier 2 entirely. And there's the restraint on modules too that is frustrating.

This said the solution has not to be drastic: just make tier1 be gone through quicker. For the rest, see my proposition. (

I've proposed a solution to the "six corvettes in the team" problem with the diversity bonus.

But still, playing only one class is not the way the game is meant, like moving only pawns in chess. Because then people just whine endlessly about their fetish class being underpowered, too.