FORUMS


Skurkanas

Statistics



POSTS


Lymceh#8349 posted (#post-117133)



Koschei doesn't need a nerf, the enemy team just needs a brain. Purge, drain, armor break etc.



I could not possibly agree more with this. As it stands, one or two good players with the right loadout can break a Koschei with ease. There's no need to make it effortless.


Pretty much this.



The Koschei nerf, showing both a striking disregard for the games balancing (The Koschei is fine in a balanced T4 game) and the games' real issues (balanced T4 games rarely ever happen) was kinda the last straw for me, showcasing that they fully intend to drive this game into the wall.


After a few weeks of the "Koschei OP" meme, most people have adapted to it. Knowing its weaknesses, killing a Koschei is almost trivial. But they would rather gimp the games only actual healer (as in: can keep people alive in a fight, not just idly regenerate them in cover), than promote some better tactical play or, god forbid, decent matchmaking.


The one thing I will concede to is that Koschei point generation is pretty insane (only ship I ever got a 5-figure score with), but that was balanced out by the fact that healing barely produces any ribbons, and thus hardly any money. Playing my corvette I would usually cash in similar amounts with half the score.

Sigh...so they listened to the "Lul I cannot brute-force kills in my dps ship nerf heals plx!!" people but corvettes who can literally farm any T3 ship and most of the supposedly OP healers at will as soon as they get heavy cloak and (bugged) blast pulse are fine.


I play both a Koschei and a Valcour and while I agree that the Koschei is insane as far as score generation and healing against autofire goes, it is actually pretty trivial for any half-decent T4 player to kill it. Drain Missiles, Rams, Drain- Blast-, or Disruptor Pulse, you name it.


But people kept shooting those at Dreadnoughts while complaining about healers. And the Devs, who should know better, listened to them. SMH. This change will not give medium tacs a place in the meta (their healing remains insignificant), it just weakens the role of the only real healer the game had.


But balancing aside, my main gripe with the game was and remains the grindy, greedy progression and monetisation system that is bleeding the playerbase dry for nothing but the shortsighted hope for a quick buck. Came back solely for alpha nostalgia lately, but it's kinda running out

I'm not aware of any F2P game that allows modding. And for good reason. How are they gonna milk you 5$ for a paintjob if you have access to an untold variety of stuff via modding for free?


Lincrono#9039 posted (#post-115940)


I can't support this. It's fundamentally flawed in that the players who are less experienced OR flying the feedermouse TII/TIII ships just get fked over by this system. Right now the system affects everyone more or less equally with only the top 10%-5% skating by on their wins and top 3 placement. going to a system based on deaths just punches players in an already unfair fight, driving them away. Furthermore, EVERYONE can object to the current system, but a system based on deaths just invites people to ignore those getting the shaft with the usual 'git good.'


In addition, we really don't need any more justification for the 'let's all hide behind cliffs with healers' meta. It's getting old as it is.



Well, the current system is driving people away, too. And not just the ones at the very bottom of the scoreboard, but everyone who's not at the very top.


I'd argue that a ship based maintenance is less frustrating because it gives you agency. Sure, you might be saddled with maintenance during your first steps into veteran while you still suck, but you can improve and see results.

Right now, you can improve all you want and you will STILL be punished, because the odds are so small that you will outscore the fully kitted T4's. Nothing is more frustrating than fighting tooth and nail to help your team win, score well, but then still be forced to pay maintenance.


Secondly, this idea is not primarely about "death based maintenance" but about ship based maintenance. The point is that you do not have to pay maintenance for ships you didn't even use, allowing you to switch ships between matches and thereby avoid paying maintenance alltogether. This would also take the sting of defeat out for newer players while giving them an opportunity to learn more ships, while the seal clubbing might be reduced as experienced players opt to play something other than their "main", more often.


Deaths are just the most obvious way to measure who has to pay it (while imo also rewarding smart play), but if people are so afraid that it would make everyone turtle 24/7 we could stick with the "pay maintenance no matter what" model. The important thing is that it is ship based, so that there is actually a point to bringing fleets.


The current model, where your entire fleet is grounded until you pay up and the only way to avoid maintenance is to literally not play the game for a few days, is unacceptable.

This thread is half a year old mate.


Still, made me sad to look at it again, seeing how people back then predicted exactly the kind of problems we now have.


Not to mention that the actual implementation of Progression 2.0 has been worse than the expected WoT model in many ways (flat out maintenance fee regardless of if- and which ships get shot down with no realistic way to avoid it whatsover). And how little of the cool stuff (customisation, optional module paths etc) has actually made it into the game

I feel flattered smile


As far as promoting an overly defensive meta goes, I think the closest comparison is team elimination and those matches are usually pretty cool and tactical imo. The only problem with them is that dying even once will make you a semi-spectator, but that wouldn't be the case here. You could respawn as normal.


And i'd definitely prefer a defensive meta over a game that bleeds players because new and inexperienced people are constantly punished

- They have to fly inferior ships

- They run into this massive grindwall

- Which feels even more massive because maintenance might stop them from getting ahead or even set them back

- Even when doing okay, they will still have to pay maintenance because only the top 3 overall are free from it and those will usually be veteran players in T4's on the winning team.


As for the question which ships get a timeout if you play multiple: Whichever ship got shot down. So usually, playing 1 ship for the entire match, that ship would be unavailable for 1 or 2 matches afterwards if it got shot down. By paying maintenance you can play it again right away, otherwise you have to pick a different ship for that match, thereby actually encouraging people to diversify a bit.


If you fly more ships and get them killed, more would be in maintenance.


Now only if you'd fly all 5 ships and got killed in all of them you'd be where we are now. Actually, you'd still be slightly better off still because you could switch out damaged ships for spares and then fly those.


This would see most peoples maintenance go down, give new players a way to progress despite loosing and also (maybe) reduce the sealclubbing since even veteran players would opt to fly their T3 or a less well equipped T4, rather than paying maintenance for their "main" ship.


It might slightly reduce revenue since maintenance wouldn't be such a punitive mechanic anymore, but I argue that will be more than compensated by better player retention (and I think Greybox would be well advised to focus more on "positive incentives", like revenue from cosmetics anyway)

The Dreads are probably the only ship type that does not have a clear "best" right now (before anyone starts telling me how xy is viable: Maybe, but Murometz, Vindicta, Valcour and Koschei are still better at it)


The Voronezh, the Lorica and even the Jutland (although more team-dependent) are all perfectly viable along the range from brawler to full-tank, so it all comes down to personal preference and playstyle, really.


If you're the "into the breach" kind of guy the Lorica works pretty well, being tough enough to push into weak points of the enemy formation while also being fast enough to pull out again if necessary.


If you're into shock and awe (and ideally have a friend who plays a Koschei), the Jutland works well. It won't hit (much less kill) anything beyond 1500m, but that's why you have target warp. And a prohibitively large health pool. It's probably harder to do well in, since you're basically just a brick that moves every other minute - and a failed jump will mean certain death - but it definitely can decide matches. Some of the most decisive dreadnought plays I have seen so far were in Jutlands (although arguably some of the least decisive, too smile)


The Voronezh is the best of both worlds. Doesn't excel in either assaulting or tanking but can do both reasonably well and is also pretty viable at area denial due to its high dps at long range.

Reposting my suggestion from a different thread (trying my best to get around the stupid spam filter that actual spammers seem to have no issue avoiding)


Anyway...



Skurkanas#7793 posted (#post-115711)


Imo they should link maintenance to deaths/damage taken and make it a "per vehicle" thing, like other games do it, instead of the flat out "pay full maintenance for everything no matter what" we have now.



  • It would not eliminate, but proportionally reduce maintenance for people who dc early or join late and don't get to participate in the game much (both in kills and deaths)

  • It would actually encourage us to unlock multiple ships and bring good fleets since we could switch around between them between games if one of our ships was in maintenance due to being killed. Right now, fleets are actually discouraged since they just make your maintenance higher

  • It would promote smart gameplay and give us a feel like we have agency in wether or not we have to pay maintenance - and how much.


There should be a top limit to how much you can pay though so players wo have a bad day aren't punished too harshly for it. This limit should be around the current maintenance pricing since let's face it, the current pricing is pretty frikkin harsh (especially if you don't do well scorewise)


Imo they should link maintenance to deaths/damage taken and make it a "per vehicle" thing, like other games do it, instead of the flat out "pay full maintenance for everything no matter what" we have now.



  • It would not eliminate, but proportionally reduce maintenance for people who dc early or join late and don't get to participate in the game much (both in kills and deaths)

  • It would actually encourage us to unlock multiple ships and bring good fleets since we could switch around between them between games if one of our ships was in maintenance due to being killed. Right now, fleets are actually discouraged since they just make your maintenance higher

  • It would promote smart gameplay and give us a feel like we have agency in wether or not we have to pay maintenance - and how much.


There should be a top limit to how much you can pay though so players wo have a bad day aren't punished too harshly for it. This limit should be around the current maintenance pricing since let's face it, the current pricing is pretty frikkin harsh (especially if you don't do well scorewise)

Imo they should link maintenance to deaths/damage taken and make it a "per vehicle" thing, like other games do it, instead of the flat out "pay full maintenance for everything no matter what" we have now.



  • It would not eliminate, but proportionally reduce maintenance for people who dc early or join late and don't get to participate in the game much (both in kills and deaths)

  • It would actually encourage us to unlock multiple ships and bring good fleets since we could switch around between them between games if one of our ships was in maintenance due to being killed. Right now, fleets are actually discouraged since they just make your maintenance higher

  • It would promote smart gameplay and give us a feel like we have agency in wether or not we have to pay maintenance - and how much.


There should be a top limit to how much you can pay though so players wo have a bad day aren't punished too harshly for it. This limit should be around the current maintenance pricing since let's face it, the current pricing is pretty frikkin harsh (especially if you don't do well scorewise)