Plain and simple, just as I mentioned in this post earlier this year, this update had fail written all over it. And so it has been proven. Good job greybox, you ruined a great game by trying to so clearly make money off failed trends in the gaming world.

Great, they're still rolling out this fail Progression Plan. I expect to be searching for a new leisure time game soon.

You guys should note that most of the players playing currently seem to be in American timezones. At the beginning of my beta experience I was playing a lot in the late Pacific American hours which meant I was playing with a lot of international players of which there seemed to be very few because my wait times were 5 to 10 minutes. Now I play in earlier hours for Pacific and for months have been finding games in 2 to 3 minutes. You could just adjust your play time for now until the player base grows.

I'm working on a couple UE4 projects myself, I'm familiar with blueprints and the raw coding portions and I'm aware of the ease with which you can make adjustments. However, part of my point is that the whole tree system as its proposed is flawed. So rebalancing it later once it's failed isn't an option, it's a fix to a broken system that will break the system more. They won't re-approach or recode it they will simply try to patch up what they build now. Thereby compounding one mistake on another.

And you have two roads to follow with UE4, you can use their blueprints system to build a complete game and then launch that way, but as a dev I can tell you that game would be bloated with unnecessary elements. Or you can use the base system you build as a template for the game which you actually rewrite the code for the base structure of the game i.e. the engine and then lay the other elements on that which makes a smoother game. From the current load times it seems like they are doing the former because elements of the game are pretty clunky when they really shouldn't be.

The whole of my point is that once this is implemented the coders will get lazy and careless about whether or not the users like the system as a whole, they'll just focus on the parts of the broken system they can "improve" and ignore the fundamental facts that the whole thing is flawed. So we'll be stuck with a game that had potential. Well someone will be stuck, because at that point I and many others will be gone.

I will say one thing, your new system will probably attract a trove of carebear gamers. Good for you, you appeal to those who put no effort into their gaming ability. Right now tactics and skill are paramount, that won't be for much longer.


I understand what you mean. However, once the code for that has been written, they are not going to just undo it, at best they'll tweak it a bit which will end up breaking it further.

We're talking about building an engine here, so the design should be heavily scrutinized prior to construction.

Mako109#2699 posted (#post-42928)

Odinous#5262 posted (#post-42923)

@Master-M-Master,i dont believe that tiers are complete garbage,nor i do fear them so much,they will implement whatever they want finally,its their game,but believe me the Devs do hear us,they have proven that in the past with "bad" desicions.So i bet its the minority that dont want this "progression" system.It will be implemented before final release,we will have time to test it and give feedback.


I highly, HIGHLY disapprove of this sort of mindset. At least, in this specific case. Had the devs been working on the game in silent, away from the public eye, or occasionally showing off something cool, sure. Fine, whatever. They can do whatever they want, and we don't care. But this game has a public (albeit invite oriented) beta, with money already being poured into it. Several of us (including me) have BOUGHT our way into the beta, specifically. If they make a decision that we disagree with, I'm not saying they should always roll over and do what we want, but saying it's "their game and they can do what they want" is a disservice to the people who will be paying to keep their lights on. And I know you might say "oh, well, it was your decision to buy your way in, you didn't have to." But imagine a startup company saying that to a bunch of investors. "I know you spent money in us, but you have no sway over anything we're doing. Toodles." Wouldn't fly, guy.

I desperately want this game to be good. This is basically my dream game. Giant spaceship fights? Yes, please! So whenever I see an idea that will make me cringe in terror, I will do all I can to rally against it.

Also, I disagree with the notion that the majority "want" the progression system. Simply, the majority do not care. The people who do care are already here, discussing it, right now. Kinda like you and me, oddly enough.

I'd like to follow this up because he made some excellent points. I apologize for the double post but I felt it was also important. What he says is true, I was about to purchase GP which would have been contributing to keeping the lights on. I also agree that most don't want this. In light of that, I would suggest to Greybox that they hold a vote. An unbinding one that you don't necessarily have to abide by. However for you to know how well recieved your plan for the game is, this would probably be the most effective way. You could totally use survey monkey for that and get it done quick with your extensive user database.

That's all.

Was just going to buy some GP, then I read up on Progression 2.0 plan. Glad I studied first. That plan is flawed and most of the reasoning has been hashed out within this thread. You don't need 50 ships. Might as well just let us custom paint the ship at creation for all that's worth.

The ships you have currently are more than enough for dynamic and engaging battles. The abilities and modules are diverse and logical. Now locking all that up with a 50+ ship plan which we know will expand later when your users start to disappear and you reason that it's because you don't have enough ships. We're going to leave because you're basically playing at the idea of Faction or Corporate Warfare with this idea of more manufactures.

The tech tree idea leaves you stuck as one type of “Pilot” rather than being a “Captain”. Picard would be just as effective on a Corvette as he would be in a Dread, he would also have all the latest tech or the tech commensurate with his rank, as you have it now. This is quoted from your post.

“Do you like Jupiter Arms and want to unlock more of their ships? Or do you prefer Corvettes and want to mainly stick to that ship type? Or do you just want to unlock whatever looks fun? The new system will allow for all kinds of ways to customize your ships and make the game your own.”

I submit to you, these lines will make the game less our own, and more so punish pilots later for picking one class over another. For example, the corvette class, I already know I can pull a 10+ and 0 game, you can’t really do that in any other ship easily or consistently, it is possible, but very unlikely. Whereas with a corvette I and many other pilots will sit on the face of anyone out there, and yes you in your Monarch. So why then when progression comes out wouldn’t I just focus on corvettes? Because that’s boring. This game is fun because I can be the big ship and or the little ship and be good at it.

The game you have is better than the game you want. The game you have right now has very engaged battles because the players are what make the difference, and that's because the players have choices. The game you're proposing suggests that you play for like 5 or 6 months before you have anywhere the ship selection I have currently after two and a half. The game you’re proposing puts too much emphasis on fair battles because of skill matching. I’ve got to tell you, I’ve been playing for a bit now, and it was hard, and it was worth it. I learned a lot getting stomped on in the beginning by those stronger players. I learned that the game is actually balanced because my tactics in engaging them improved thereby making me more effective in situations my ship at my rank and skill was designed for. So I actually learned how to pilot my ship. If everyone’s the same skill and rank you’re going to have a run in head first type, feel because you know your enemy is reasonable. The level of PC culture that is bugs me. The battle ground shouldn’t always be fair, and it sure isn’t ever fair in real-life, sure I get it, it’s a game. The game doesn’t have to be easy mode. You’re basically going to pair people up based on what they’ve unlocked.

I'll tell you right now, if you expect someone to use one of the tier 1 ships for months while paying for each ability and module for each ship you want to fly while trying to make game progression something meaningful, you really haven't thought this one through then. Oh and I really don’t feel the need to mention Fleet Maintenance costs at length, simply because I hope you’re apt enough to realize that would simply exacerbate everything I’ve already mentioned.

I build software for a living, and I know you'll agree, the user experience is everything. Right now, you have a great one setup, I would actually play this game in its current form and have been recommending it to my friends to join the beta (that's gonna stop), and I'd actually pay to get ships and modules a little quicker. I actually haven’t minded the FP grind that’s involved, the contract system not working is bugging me because I’ve definitely cleared these multiple times over by now. Fixing that would make this game great, as well as the team matching etc. I did watch the feed from yesterday’s Twitch, and he was discussing why you want to implement this system. He said once you’ve reached max level you have nothing really to strive for. The reason that is, is because you have limited game modes, limited communication between players by way of voice communications. Oh yea we don’t even know if you’re going to put voice in the game, which btw is just about the only thing this game is missing. If we could talk to each-other the game would feel way less lonely. Your address to that is adding AI for noob players to shoot at. You’re not really thinking through the game you’ve created at all. You’re thinking individual player experience while trying to correlate that experience with a group experience by adding some noob in to fly around the outskirts and shoot AI. Sorry this isn’t a sound way to teach new players. And your matching system you propose is a great way to isolate people to those roles until they’ve leveled up enough.

These are minor things compared to the complete overhaul which I’ll from now refer to as the “Progression 2.0 Update: Everything You Didn’t Want to Happen to a Great Game”

Too many are complaining about turtling. It really isn't an issue if you fit against it with your destroyer. A Gora with Nuke Torp Drain Trop ability reboot and Desperate Measures can break up even the most beefy turtle camp. drain nuke reboot drain nuke, at this point you're probably dieing so your get the ability reboot, shield drain nuke reboot drain nuke. I mean I haven't found a camp that can stop just me doing that yet, let alone two or more with this config.

depends on the ship. and then the ship depends on your play style. if you wanna pop ships get a destroyer or a dread and then focus on defensive officer briefings like its a trap or desperate measures. destroyer gives you the nuke and drain torp along with ability reboot and desperate measures gives you an additional reboot when in combat and you get low. so i've at times fired off 3 nukes fully breaking up enemy camps. just depends on your style because i still die to vetts as well.

Looking for a squad to join. US Pacific. Well rounded, playing for a couple months. Likes long walks on the beach and aggressive engagements.