FORUMS


Beowulf

Statistics



POSTS


obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-80091)



Beowulf#6663 posted (#post-79951)


I don't know, again, from what obliv has been saying it sounds like WoT and while that game is extremely grindy it has a good player base. Also keep in mind that this update apparently only came out a few days ago; Lets see where it goes before we cast final judgments on it. Still this does not bode well for the game



What you (and most defenders of this model) are missing is that there are a range of reasons why WoT got away with its model, and none of those things can be applied to Dreadnought:




  1. It was basically the first game using the model it had. Dreadnought is YEARS late to be following in its footsteps with any hope of success.




  2. The individual tanks are almost all unique and different, not linear stat upgrades with extra module slots thrown in at certain tiers on top of the flat "better than previous tier" build-up.




  3. The tiers are MUCH flatter in WoT than Dreadnought, in part because they have a lot more tiers.




  4. Even with much, MUCH less of a gap between tiers, players who quit - and there are a lot - frequently mention the elements of WoT that Dreadnought is trying to mimic as reasons to quit.




  5. Even with all the things which have allowed it to get away with that model, the game (and the company running it) has been losing popularity fairly steadily in recent years as players move to the competition where new devs are NOT mimicking that now-proven failed model.





Not trying to defend the model, I personal hate it and is the reason i stop playing WoT, i'm just trying too see where there coming from and why they would want to try this, in my mind awful, business model. I may not like it but i can see why they would want to experiment with it to see if they can make it work.


I hope they move away from it, however I also need to take what your saying with a grain of salt since i have yet to log in too see myself how it works because lets face it people go to forums to complain and these forums don't seem to be too active so i have no idea if it is this bad or if it's just a lot of belly aching on your part. Since you seem rather knowledgeable on this i doubt you are but still.


DN_MiguelItUp#0468 posted (#post-79977)


We started at 10AM CST. We're slowing down right now and should be completely done soon.



Ok so the problem IS on my end since i been having this same problem yesterday so can anyone help me figure out what is wrong

who knows when they started preparing there servers to be tested? Still what i want to know is WHEN exactly they started testing and WHEN they stop testing them so i know for sure if it's a problem on my end or there's.

Ok they ended the live steam but are they still doing the stress test? I still cant log in and it has been showing me the same message as it did before of unavailable servers; does anyone know whats going on?


Quayjay#4843 posted (#post-79941)



DN_Hyphenator#0000 posted (#post-79925)



Quayjay#4843 posted (#post-79813)

The problem as I see it, The Developers have no clue what they have implemented as far as the grind goes. They play with maxed out ships with unlimited credits and have no idea what its like running a tier 2 or 3 ship against tier 4. They are completely clueless. The grind itself is not that bad but to have to do it with such un-balanced matches is ridiculous.



Just to be absolutely transparent and clear, this is untrue. Our QA testers may have various levels of progressed and non-progressed accounts and some of them may test at max level for completeness. However, all of the Grey Box employee player accounts are explicitly forbidden from being granted special items or additional currency or experience points. I can attest to this personally because, since the new Progression 2.0 release, I am very far behind everyone and play in Tier 1 still.



Well at least everything else is obviously true due to your lack of even acknowledging anything else I said.


I hope you guys turn this game into something good but the way it is now, it don't stand a chance of being anything more then a fad people will play a few days and toss it aside.



I don't know, again, from what obliv has been saying it sounds like WoT and while that game is extremely grindy it has a good player base. Also keep in mind that this update apparently only came out a few days ago; Lets see where it goes before we cast final judgments on it. Still this does not bode well for the game


obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-79864)



Beowulf#6663 posted (#post-79840)


So i just got a Key yesterday and havent been able to play yet (keeps saying the servers are down, not sure of the problem is on there end or mine) What exactly did this recent update do and is it as bad as you guys are making it out as?



Point 1 - ship numbers/tier system


Before the update: We had 15 ships. Every ship was on fairly even ground with the others, and they all felt powerful and useful in every match. There were no "tiers" of ships - there were later unlocks in the progression mechanics, but they didn't make a player directly more powerful because the different ships were all effectively a single tier.


After the update: We now have "50" ships... but we ACTUALLY only have 15 actually complete ships, with between 3 and 5 variants of each tracing down from t5 (where you get the "whole" ship) to tier 1, which only has 3 classes and limited customisation as well as massively gimped performance that leaves them incapable of standing up to a player with a higher-tier ship than you.


Prior to the progression 2.0 release, afer the devs announced the plan for a tier-based progression system, players mentioned that this type of model was a concerning possibility. Basically, there was a fairly consistent recurring "please don't do this" request, with "this" being the exact model the devs chose. Since then, there have been consistent "please remove that change, it was a bad idea" requests, even from new players who never knew the game before the update. The response has been to dismiss these concerns at best, and more often to simply pretend the question doesn't exist at all.


Point 2 - maintenance


Before the update: There were no maintenance fees. You earn credits in a match, they're yours.


After the update: Significant maintenance fees cutting into player earnings. The devs said this was a "bug" and that they were going to "fix" the costs - the update which "fixed" the maintenance costs has driven them even higher.


When progresison 2.0 was announced, this kind of forced paywall was a minor concern very few players even considered a possibility coming from these devs. It was mentioned, and was, again, mentioned as "please don't do it" by everyone who brought it up, but it was basically dismissed as never going to happen by much of the community without even bothering to add voices to the "don't do it devs" calls. Also, the dev response to players saking why it even needs to be in the game has been a blatant "it's there to force you to buy premium time". The only reason that system exists is to extort money from players.


Point 3 - tech tree


Before the update: The progression was purely linear. Not the best, but a model VERY open to being adapted into a really solid and player-driven system, and ALSO really open to having good monetisation mechanics built into it.


After the update: Strict tech tree with limited branches requiring players to use specific ships they often don't like in order to unlock other ships, including ships of different classes, and ships which have core required upgrades locked to the higher-tier versions.


This was, as with the other major changes, a commonly-mentioned way to completely screw up the proposed new update before progression 2.0 came out. Instead of taking this feedback on board, the devs did almost EXACTLY the worst version of what players asked them to try and avoid. Since then, they've scrambled to ask for ways to "tweak" the system, instead of listening to the repeated calls for them to REMOVE it.



Everything you described sounds like its coming from World of Tanks. The different tier's, Tech tree, and the Maintenance cost. So if what your saying is right (Since i'm still yet to get in is anyone else having this problem?) i have to guess they were looking at WoT since whether we like it or not it is a successful game and wanted to see if they could copy what there doing.


Quayjay#4843 posted (#post-79843)



Beowulf#6663 posted (#post-79840)



obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-79836)


https://www.greybox.com/dreadnought/en/forum/topic/33237/


Long-running petition from some of the more active fans, created based on the NON-RESPONSIVENESS of the developers to the consistent negative feedback against almost everything that progression 2.0 stands for. The group of active Dreadnought supporters who have essentially given up on making real change settled on a set of small changes to push for in place of actually demanding the kind of meaningful change the game will need to survive long-term.


If you can deal with them keeping the tier system, but trying to refine it, support the petition. If you're ok with maintenance, but changed up a bit to be less punishing, support the petition. If you want the devs to build the game around "must spend money to keep playing how you want", support the petition.


https://www.greybox.com/dreadnought/en/forum/topic/37192/


This newer petition is one I created. It pushes for more changes, and more meaningful change, than the older one. It doesn't have much support yet, but it's only just started. And unlike the first petition which is based on discussion back and forth between a small group of players already disillusioned by their persistently-ignored attempts to make the kind of changes the game NEEDS, this was backed up by a poll of the community, and is based on what the majority of players have been asking for - a return to the state we had before progression 2.0 - and building on THAT as a starting point to make the game work.


Before 2.0, your problems with tiers simply did not exist. There were no tiers. Ships were all relatively well balanced against one another - actually much better balanced than a lot of already-released class-based games. Before 2.0, the progression system still needed work, but there were several valid and helpful ways to develop it into a more player-driven and fun system (which could also become an effecitve monetisation mechanic), where the current system is strictly linear with no real option to expand out from being linear and restrictive.


Personally, I think we need to go back. Obviously, Odin is a good example of someone who has given up on seeing that change (he's openly countered my previous arguments NOT with anything that actually goes against them, but with "the devs worked for months on the update, they're not going to go back"). He's not alone in accepting the state of the game and being willing to accept far less change than many others who have quit.


If we can get enough people to support a petition - ANY petition - we might see enough change ot keep the game alive. I would rather see enough change to bring me back, and to bring many players I know of EITHER back to the game OR into it for the first time. I have 3 invites which I plan to share with friends, but only if there's enough change to bring me back to the game. I'm not going to invite people to a game I no longer have any interest in playing. I have several friends who WERE lined up with plans to buy into the beta before progression 2.0, but hesitated because of the concerns about it - and are currently very glad they DIDN'T buy in after seeing how it's been (mis)handled. I have other friends who were watching the game with interest until 2.0 and ended up looking for ways to cancel their registration for a chance at a beta key. There are people out there who are actively AVOIDING news they had previously been trying to find, because of the complete ignorance of player feedback coming into this update and pushing forward with the direction it took.



So i just got a Key yesterday and havent been able to play yet (keeps saying the servers are down, not sure of the problem is on there end or mine) What exactly did this recent update do and is it as bad as you guys are making it out as?



You just got your key? And you think I am salty? Wait until you actually get in and see how bad your bent over and F*ed up the A before you think we are "Just Being Salty"


My advise is buy the founders pack now or you don't stand a chance. Its Pay to Win at its best.



I say your salty because of how over the top you are, you make it sound like this games beyond hope when it's still in closed beta, while i'm not saying you shouldn't talk about the game problem's, again it's in closed beta so we should, however when you talk about it like this it stops sounding like "Reasonable concerns" and goes straight to "Been drinking salt water" Take a step back, calm down, and come at this with a level head like the other guy who sounded a lot more reasonable and quite frankly sane then you are in the original post.

Just got the key yesterday and when got around to trying to log in every time i have tried i keep getting "The server is currently unavailable, Please try again later." Now from what i can see a event is coming up so i'm not sure if they have them down to prepare for it or if the problem is on my end. does anyone know for sure?

Well i haven't been able to log into the game and play it to see how it is myself, Keeps saying the server is unavailable so not sure if the problem is on my end or there's, however i will keep this petition on my radar in case i see something that screams to be a bad idea.


obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-79836)


https://www.greybox.com/dreadnought/en/forum/topic/33237/


Long-running petition from some of the more active fans, created based on the NON-RESPONSIVENESS of the developers to the consistent negative feedback against almost everything that progression 2.0 stands for. The group of active Dreadnought supporters who have essentially given up on making real change settled on a set of small changes to push for in place of actually demanding the kind of meaningful change the game will need to survive long-term.


If you can deal with them keeping the tier system, but trying to refine it, support the petition. If you're ok with maintenance, but changed up a bit to be less punishing, support the petition. If you want the devs to build the game around "must spend money to keep playing how you want", support the petition.


https://www.greybox.com/dreadnought/en/forum/topic/37192/


This newer petition is one I created. It pushes for more changes, and more meaningful change, than the older one. It doesn't have much support yet, but it's only just started. And unlike the first petition which is based on discussion back and forth between a small group of players already disillusioned by their persistently-ignored attempts to make the kind of changes the game NEEDS, this was backed up by a poll of the community, and is based on what the majority of players have been asking for - a return to the state we had before progression 2.0 - and building on THAT as a starting point to make the game work.


Before 2.0, your problems with tiers simply did not exist. There were no tiers. Ships were all relatively well balanced against one another - actually much better balanced than a lot of already-released class-based games. Before 2.0, the progression system still needed work, but there were several valid and helpful ways to develop it into a more player-driven and fun system (which could also become an effecitve monetisation mechanic), where the current system is strictly linear with no real option to expand out from being linear and restrictive.


Personally, I think we need to go back. Obviously, Odin is a good example of someone who has given up on seeing that change (he's openly countered my previous arguments NOT with anything that actually goes against them, but with "the devs worked for months on the update, they're not going to go back"). He's not alone in accepting the state of the game and being willing to accept far less change than many others who have quit.


If we can get enough people to support a petition - ANY petition - we might see enough change ot keep the game alive. I would rather see enough change to bring me back, and to bring many players I know of EITHER back to the game OR into it for the first time. I have 3 invites which I plan to share with friends, but only if there's enough change to bring me back to the game. I'm not going to invite people to a game I no longer have any interest in playing. I have several friends who WERE lined up with plans to buy into the beta before progression 2.0, but hesitated because of the concerns about it - and are currently very glad they DIDN'T buy in after seeing how it's been (mis)handled. I have other friends who were watching the game with interest until 2.0 and ended up looking for ways to cancel their registration for a chance at a beta key. There are people out there who are actively AVOIDING news they had previously been trying to find, because of the complete ignorance of player feedback coming into this update and pushing forward with the direction it took.



So i just got a Key yesterday and havent been able to play yet (keeps saying the servers are down, not sure of the problem is on there end or mine) What exactly did this recent update do and is it as bad as you guys are making it out as?