While matchmaking obviously cannot give you perfect matches every time especially with the limited playerbase and because of the huge experience difference in veteran (players who just entered veteran from recruit and players who have played hundreds of hours), there are still a lot of matches that could be a lot more balanced just by swapping some players in each team. It usually happens when there is a squad involved where the team with a full lvl 50 squad gets additional solo lvl 50s and high lvl players while the other team has maybe one lvl 50. so its six lvl 50s vs one lvl 50. The match is obviously unbalanced and could be a lot more balanced just by at least putting the solo lvl50s and high lvl players in one team so they can face the full lvl 50 squad, instead of further strengthening the full lvl50 squad.

T3 ships:
The gap between t3 and t4 depends very much on the ship and the OBs that you have unlocked already. The gap between t3 and t4 artillery cruisers is not very big. T3 tacs and dreads can also be quite effective if you have GetMyGoodSide and Retaliator researched, thats a big "if" though. T3 destroyers and vetts will have a hard time. They both lack good offensive modules to compete with fully geared t4s and therefore they will have to play more as a support role or try to face other t3s.

the grind:
I too think the grind is okay, however I usually play to win and not to grind so it might not feel that bad for me because I just don't care that much. However, while the average time for a new ship might not be that much, its the distribution of time you have to play each ship that makes it feel like an eternity. You can probably get from t1 to t2 in 2-3 games (even if you are new to the game), while you need dozens of games to get from t3 to t4. That combined with the huge experience gap between different veteran players and also difference in researched OBs/ships/modules makes it feel like you are permanently underpowered. I can see why it is very painfull if you are a new player in veteran and you are permanently on the bottom of the scoreboard and losing many games and therefore the grind will feel much worse than it is.

ship XY is overpowered;
I agree that ships in general are not overpowered, some OBs and some modules are though. There are also many modules that are completely underpowered. It also depends how many ships use a specific module, e.g.: one dread with armor booster pulse is easy to beat, however a healball with 2-3 dreads spamming armor booster pulse all the time is very difficult to beat as every ship in their group will permanently have huge amounts of damage reduction which will also effectively increase the healing output of the healers.

If players have the mentality that they cannot win no matter what (either because the score difference is already too high or because the teams are not balanced) then I doubt that forcing them to stay will suddenly make them try hard to win. Instead they will either go afk, or they will just fly into the enemy team just to end the match quicker, or they will switch to somekind of suicide tactic just to get some points out of it. I have seen all of this even though there is no real penalty right now. It only happens rarely right now but i believe the numbers of this saboteurs will increase if a penalty system is implemented. I rather have players leave if they want to instead of sabotaging the game.

Brother Belial#4215 posted (#post-210741) said:

Ortis#6925 said:

I have to agree with FooJub here. The problem is the skill gap between new veteran players and lvl 50 players with a ton of experience. It is NOT that people squad up and it is NOT the tier difference. I am a lvl 50 player myself and whenever I squad with other lvl 50 players there is little to no communication until we face another group (not squad) of lvl 50s, simply because communication isn't needed to crush a team of players who have little experience. The tier difference isn't a deciding factor either as we have played full tier3 squads (j4f) and we still crushed the other teams simply because we are a lot more experienced.

Hardly true, As a fresh or even slightly geard T3 will not have the OB's you have access to. So from the get go, this squiffing the balance of the fight to your favor. Say it wouldn't and you're just liying to your self.

Of course OBs make a difference but I don't think it's the deciding factor. Btw, if you are suggesting to rework some of the most powerful OBs like Retaliator, GMGS and AS, I'm the first to agree with you. However, I still believe the problem is the skill gap between players in veteran. Lvl 50 players are probably the top 10% of players in this game (of course there can be exceptions, there can be lvl 50 players who are bad and there can be lvl 25 players that are really good, but this exceptions are rare simply because it takes time to get good in the game). And as soon you get to veteran (which probably takes like a day of playing) you will have to face the top 10% of the game. In most modern competitive games though this is not something that will happen because of a rank/league system. But if you would have to face the elite players in this games you would just get crushed. Play against a CS:GO pro and you will get crushed even if he plays pistols only, play against a StarCraft2 pro and you will get crushed even if you play 2vs1. The gear doesn't matter at that point because the skill gap is too big. Yes, eventually if you play a lot and you get better, then there will be the point where the skill gap is small enough so that the gear matters and at this point you might be a threat for the CS:GO pro player if he plays pistols only. But in dreadnought, by the time you reach that point you will probably have most of the important gear/ships unlocked anyways.

Maybe you should make a fresh account, and see the difference first hand, mayby, just maybe, some of the points they make are accurate.

So here is a story that just happened yesterday: I was playing with two other experienced players in my squad (we didn't communicate over voicechat at all). They both had relatively fresh accounts (idk why they made new accounts, so don't ask me). One of them needed 6k xp to unlock a t3 so he asked if we could play a recruit game. I haven't been playing recruit for months and I still had the tier1 tactical in my recruit fleet back from the time when you had to have a tier1 in your recruit fleet so that you won't be matched against veterans. I didn't even bother to change it to the tier2. So I just decided to heal with my tier1 tactical so my squadmembers can farm some xp. I think the game ended something like 100-20, our squad was first in the scoreboard with 14-0, 13-0, 1-0 (me cause i was healing). We didn't have any OBs or communication or superior ships, the reason we won was simply because we were a lot more experienced.

1) Increase the grind in recruit, because right now it takes an afternoon to reach tier3 and then you are suddenly facing opponents with hundrets of hours of experience

Thats a bad Idea IMO, people complain about the grind enough as it is, increasi8ng it is not going to help player retention, and the player base at higher levels could thin out as people end up playing the same people over and over.

I haven't seen anyone complain about the grind in tier1-2, so increasing it there and lowering it at tier3-4 as a compensation might actually help. Every solution that will narrow the skill gap will also thin out the playerbase at higher levels, because there are only so many high level players. I still think it is something that has to be done to keep matches balanced.

4) Allow 5vs5, 6vs6, 7vs7 if there are not enough players or the skill gap between players is too high. This would also decrease queue times and make legendary more popular for high lvl players.

I don't think this would help, as you would just farm the bots on the other team. pluse the MM can't always balance the teams, I've played legendary matches where it was 4 real and 4AI vs 6 real and 2 AI.

6) Remove bots from veteran and legendary, because they are just feeding and therefore a 8vs7 with no bot is more balanced than a 8vs8 with a bot in one team.

So wouldn't it be better to have a 5vs5 with no bots in that case?

Lando Calrissian#2323 posted (#post-210758) said:

Some ideas I just came up with are 1) to decrease the Battle Bonus cooldown for Legendary from 20 minutes to something like 12 minutes or even 10 minutes, 2) make the base earnings in Legendary even without Battle Bonus be more than in Veteran (ex. add 30% to Legendary earnings when Battle Bonus is inactive), 3) increase the Battle Bonus rewards in Legendary; do you think any of these would help "keep" higher experienced players in Legendary rather than Veteran (at least when they're not grinding any of their remaining T3s/T4s)?

I agree, I suggested something similar in a different topic in the forum. However, many high lvl players are at the point where they just don't care about progression too much anymore. Still, anything that motivates high lvl players to play legendary will help.

LYB-FooJub#4039 posted (#post-210377) said:

Making a dedicated "group queue" isn't gonna change much. The primary issue remains to be that players who've been in this game for a week, maybe a few weeks are going against players who've been here for months, maybe years. I've been in matches where either myself or another player can pretty much singlehandedly annihilate the enemy team simply due to that disparity. Another fact is simply that squads aren't needed to stomp. 2, even 1 player can achieve the same result as a squad of 4, it may just take more time. So yet again. Limiting, or removing, or making squads only fight eachother will not. Stop. The problem.

I have to agree with FooJub here. The problem is the skill gap between new veteran players and lvl 50 players with a ton of experience. It is NOT that people squad up and it is NOT the tier difference. I am a lvl 50 player myself and whenever I squad with other lvl 50 players there is little to no communication until we face another group (not squad) of lvl 50s, simply because communication isn't needed to crush a team of players who have little experience. The tier difference isn't a deciding factor either as we have played full tier3 squads (j4f) and we still crushed the other teams simply because we are a lot more experienced.

If you are not a lvl 50 player then you probably are not a challange for an experienced lvl 50 player. It's that simple. So if you are not a lvl 50 and you are complaining about tier difference or squads or voice chat, it is just an excuse for not being good enough. I'm sorry if I have to put it that way but that is how it is and I don't mean it as an insult. Players start to get good around lvl 50, it just takes time to get good.

The best would be to have somekind of rank or league system similar to StarCraft2, CounterStrike GO, League of Legends, etc...; so that you are facing opponents of similar skill. However, the game lacks the playerbase to support such a system, especially as long the players are further split into different tiers.

What could help to decrease the skill gap between players and increase balance in veteran would be one or more of the following ideas:

1) Increase the grind in recruit, because right now it takes an afternoon to reach tier3 and then you are suddenly facing opponents with hundrets of hours of experience

2) Make somekind of entry condition before you can join veteran like, you need every tier3 unlocked, or you need X matches played, etc...

3) Make it so you need to reach a minimum lvl X before you can join veteran. This would also prevent people from playing in veteran (and legendary) with their tier4 hero ships even though they have no experience at all.

4) Allow 5vs5, 6vs6, 7vs7 if there are not enough players or the skill gap between players is too high. This would also decrease queue times and make legendary more popular for high lvl players.

5) Show how many people are in the queue for legendary, again this would reduce queue times for legendary and therefore make it more attractive.

6) Remove bots from veteran and legendary, because they are just feeding and therefore a 8vs7 with no bot is more balanced than a 8vs8 with a bot in one team.

7) FooJub also suggested in a different post to remove tier4 from veteran. I'm not sure if there are enough tier4 players to support this idea, but i guess it is definitly worth a try.

The matchmaker needs a fix though (and I am not saying that squads must face other squads). But how it is right now is something like this:

Team1: There are four lvl 50 players in a squad + 1 additional random lvl 50 player + 2 other random high lvl players (~30-49) + 1 random low lvl player

Team2: 1 lvl 50 player + 1 high lvl player + 6 low lvl players

That is obviously ridiculus and just by swapping some players the teams would be a lot more balanced (putting the two random lvl50 players and the high ranked players in the same team).

I think that's all I have to say, hope it helps.

(Ingame voice chat would be nice though)

DN_KareRaisu#3187 posted (#post-176422)

Quite frankly, the Nuke Salvo, Repair Autobeams, and Kinetic Armor Amplifier were utterly broken. I understand the frustration when one of your favourite modules gets the nerf bat, but you want the game to be a fair competition, right? We'll be keeping a close eye on these modules as there's always a chance of over-correction and knock-on effects are something we'll be increasingly vigilant of.

Nuke Salvo

The things that are broken about nuke salvo are:

1) the "tilt your ship to make them more accurate" bug;

2) that they spawn right on top of you and not at the position where you were when your opponent launched the nukes (unlike for example bomb catapult). So even if you see them being launched you can't just move away to avoid them;

3) The lack of good defensive modules to counter them;

4) That the t5 version has 200m more radius compared to the t4 version (900m instead of 700m). That means it covers more than twice the volume of the t4 version!!! And therefore it is also alot more likely to be hit by multiple nukes.

However, if you make Anti Nuke Lasers usefull and fix "1)", "2)" and "4)" I don't think such a hard damage nerf is needed.

Repair Autobeams

The planned nerf will increase the time between heal ticks by 50% and the healing by tick from 1200 to 900 (t4) that basicly halfs the overall healing (600hps). Additionally there is increased cooldown and decreased active time and range. The nerf is simply too hard, especially if you don't fix the "beams keep healing ships that have full health" issue. It will be incredibly hard to outheal even one attacker, so I doubt that people will keep playing healers.

Kinetic Armor Amplifier

The planned nerf will reduce the damage resistance from 50% to 30% that means the corvette will actually take 40% more damage than before. Furthermore you are going to nerf the activation time from 15s to 10s and the energy gained from 0.02 to 0.0125. That all together is just too much. Nobody will use this module anymore.

Corvettes are already underpowered in high tier matches with experienced players, no matter which modules they equip. I haven't seen a corvette being succsessful in legendary matches so far. They only shine against inexperienced/low tier players.

Lando Calrissian#2323 posted (#post-176452)

I did some testing yesterday, launching my Drain Torpedo from 2.4 km and Storms from 2.0 km; this didn't really affect the Vindicta, but with the Vigo it became nearly suicide (<20% health after attack) or actual suicide almost every (>80%) single time.

I can comfirm this. Vigo is too fragile and Blud too slow to get into 2km range effectively (at least not without dying while trying to get out. For the same reasons they can't effectively use rams. So their only option will be long range missiles, which are quite useless without drain torpedo as your opponent can just use his shields and even without shields he has forever to hide behind cover.

Vindicta will not really be effected by the range nerfs but Vigo and Blud will be. They now have to get a little bit closer (2.4km instead of 2.8km) to do less damage (Missile Repeater instead of Storms) or they will have to get a lot closer (2.0km) to do the same damage. I really don't see why Vigo and Blud need a nerf.

Furtheremore I don't think Storm Missiles are OP at all. I have had a lot of destroyers use them on me and it is relatively easy to get behind cover, use any defensive module or just turn your ship so that "Get My Good Side" triggers and spam the shield button. You also have to get quite close already to use them. Modules like Assault Blink Warp or Palsma Ram that just ignore shields and deal a huge amount of damage at once are a lot harder to counter.

DN_KareRaisu#3187 posted (#post-176422)

Other nerfs, like the Storm Missiles, are born from the alternatives being pretty good, but everyone uses the Storm Missiles anyway. Plasma and Purge Rams feel good enough, so buffing them to match the Storm Missiles seems like an unnecessary change. We'll keep an eye on it, and hopefully Tempest Missiles with their usability improvements (and Missile Repeaters with their bug fixes) will be a more viable option.

Plasma Ram is very good for Vindicta and a lot of players use it as it instakills many ships as it ignores shields. Purge Ram is not used because why should you use a ram that drains shields and does a lot less damage if you could just use Plasma Ram that just ignores shields and instakills instead.

As I just explained Vigo and Blud are both not suited for rams and long range missiles are not a good alternative because you are missing drain and without drain missiles are not a good option in general. Nobody will use Tempest missiles with the little damage they do and without drain. Launching a missile from 10km range does absolutely nothing. Make them ignore shields and they might be usefull but not like they are now.

DN_KareRaisu#3187 posted (#post-176422)

I heavily disagree with the notion that standardizing these modules is 'dumbing down' the game... most of the variance between tiers was token at best and didn't create any meaningful positive dynamics in playing the game. Now that everyone knows the ranges of certain modules, the level of play can increase as it's based on pure skill rather than remembering 10 variants of the same module.

1) I find it strange that you guys defend standardization while two patches ago you just changed the optimal range of all t3 ships. That's the opposite of standardization, it is just very inconsistent. Just saying...

2) Remembering the modules and their ranges and using that knowledge is a part of skill.

3) I don't think anybody complains about standardization between tiers. The more standardization between tiers the better. However, standardization between classes is the problem. Why does a corvette need 2.4km range torpedos? Why do destroyers and dreadnoughts get a range nerf on their Drain Torpedos and Jackal Torpedos? This are just buffs and nerfs that are not needed.

DN_KareRaisu#3187 posted (#post-176422)

Balance changes will be done much more frequently than in the past, so keep the feedback coming. Who knows, maybe a week from now you'll have found a way to make Artillery Pods the new flavor of the month and Nuke Salvo nerfs are the least of your concerns!

It is good that you finally start doing balance changes and it is good that you ask the communityabout them before actually releasing them. Even if there are a lot of critical posts, changes are appreciated.

So here is my opinion....

For destroyers:

The drain torpedo range nerf (2.8km->2.4km) and the storm missile nerf (3km->2km) will result in even more people playing Vindicta. Vigo is too fragile and Blud is too slow to get effectively in 2km range. The next best option instead of storms is Flashpoint Torpedo Salvo (if it gets buffed to 3km range) or Missile Repeater (which is quite slow and has longer cooldown). Both not ideal and both do not deal enough damage to take out a tactical cruiser or another destroyer, though it is possible with Module Amper but there is not much room for mistakes. And you would still have to get below 2.4km because of the reduced drain torpedo range. Without drain, damage dealing missiles and torpedos are quite useless. Therefore long range missiles like Tempest Missiles are also quite useless, furthermore your target has a lot more time to react and position himself behind cover. Overall it will result in more people playing Vindictas as it is a lot easier to get below 2km range and other missile combos are just not such good options for Vigo and Blud.

I don't really understand the nerf. Yes, storm+drain is very often used on destroyers and yes, it can instakill a lot of ships, but you just need enough speed, cover or any defensive module and you will be save. Furthermore destroyers have to get quite close to use this combo and they are already the easiest class to kill (especially Vigo and Blud, Vindicta only if stasised); they are relatively fragile, easy to hit, slow and they lack good defensive modules. I also haven't seen any posts on the forum complaining about destroyers or storm+drain imbalance. If this nerf is just to make people use other modules then make other modules more usefull but nerfing the only tool that makes Vigo and Blud effective without offering good alternatives is just a nerf for destroyers in general which is not needed.

For healers:

Basically the overall healing output will be reduced significantly with the patch though I don't think the healing output we have right now is the problem. So what are the problems?

First, tacs are very hard to take down, especially if there is more than one. This is mostly because of Adrinaline Shot + Retaliator + another defensive module like Generator or Target Warp which allows them to regenerate a lot of energy, which means 80% damage reduction shields go up, Retaliator kicks in and they can use their defensive module more often. This makes them really hard to crack.

Second, there is no real alternative than to go for the tacs. You might be able to do enough peak damage to kill a destroyer or you might feed on a corvette but what if there is no corvette and the destroyers are smart enough to take cover? You can't really go for artillery cruisers or dreadnoughts. Artillery cruisers have such a tiny hitbox that 90% of shots will miss it anyway and the 10% that might hit can easily be outhealed by a tac. T4 dreadnoughts on the other side will turn almost invincible with a tac but this is not because the tac heals such insane amounts but because almost all T4 dreadnoughts have Retaliator + 'Get on my good side' + Armor Amplifier equipped. This has the same effect as Retaliator + Adrinaline Shot has for the tac, it regenerates insane amounts of energy (if enough players are focusing the dread than the dread will even regenerate energy with shields activated) and reduces the cooldown significantly. The dreadnought can use Armor Amplifier far more often which makes it effectively invincible and the tac can heal any damage that was done so far. Furtermore it will increase the overall dps of the dread as offensive modules will also profit from the cooldown reduction.

In conclusion: I don't think the overall healing output of the tac is a problem. The problem are the three officer briefeings Retaliator, Get on my good side and Adrinaline Shot. They all work the same, which is that they scale with the damage the ship receives /scale with the healing the ship does and receives and they all have a huge impact on the overall performance of the dread or tac. From my experience other officer briefings slightly increase the overall performance of ships but these three make a ship at least twice as strong. Drain and disruption do not counter them, the only module that counters them is purge beam (constant energy drain + reduced armor), other purge modules are not very effective. You can take out a dread with focusfire if it doesn't have this officer briefings, you can't if it has. It's that simple.

Nerfing the healing output is not the awnser. A healer has to compensate for a missing damage dealer otherwise it makes no sense to play healer. The real problem is the officer briefing combination Adrinaline Shot + Retaliator which turns the tac into a tank and the combination 'Get on my good side' + Retaliator which turns dreads invincible if they have a healer. So if you really want to balance something maybe remove the damage scaling from this officer briefings so that you always gain a constant amount when being shot (no matter how many players shoot you or how much dps they do) or give them somekind of drawback like a lot of other officer briefings have too. Something like "X% more energy consumption when energy put to shields" or "X% reduced healing when shields are active". Or you could make it that the officer briefings are inactive when the ship is being drained or disrupted.

Obviously that all is just my experience and opinion. I use this briefings myself on many ships and I honestly think that they have too much of an impact on a ships performance.

For corvettes:

Standardized torpedo range results in more range for corvette torpedos which is simply unnecessary. Kinetic Armor Amplifier will be nerfed which is okay as it really is very strong, however it is one of the very few options a corvette has to attack a bunch of artillery cruisers that hide themselves in proximity mines. Maybe give antimissile pulse of corvettes the ability to destroy mines and give it more range, so you have an option to deal with mine artillery cruisers.

For Dreadnoughts:

Let's see if Nuclear Missile Salvo will still be used but overall I am okay with the changes.

Artillery Cruisers

It is true that most players do not equip autobeams but I really don't think it is because they are so weak. It is just that they want somekind of offensive module instead of going full defence. Artillery cruisers are already such a pain to take out I don't think they need an autobeam buff. I mean, how should a corvette get below 1.2km which is its effective range, if the artillery cruiser has 2km range stasis autobeams. It's just ridiculous.

Also the arming time for Bomb Catapult just destroys a niche tactic that is not op at all.

Same for destroyer Goliath Torpedo, it just makes the module less usefull. Please don't put a lock on modules just because someone could hurt himself. It just destroys the tactical depth of the game.

All other changes are okay or good imo, especially the Anti-Nuke Lasers.

I have seen this guy in several matches. He always plays Otranto and does the same thing every game: he just ascends as high as possible and goes forward, sometimes using his warpdrive, eventually he will hit the map border and will be auto warped back to battle but he just keeps going forward. He does not fire back, uses his shields or uses his other modules. Eventually he will be shot down by the other team. He does absolutely nothing productive and acts like somekind of bot.

Maybe it is somekind of xp/credits farming bot. He just joins games and goes forward the whole time so he doesn't get kicked for inactivity. At the end of the match he will get some xp/credits even though there is no player playing. But that is obviously just my guess.

I do not know if there is somekind of report function but if a developer reads this, pls look into this guys behaviour and statistics and do something about him if you find something thats iffy.

From my experience high lvl players will often choose tier IV corvetts and artillery cruisers because they can kill low tier inexperienced players a lot faster and more frequent than with other classes. Not easier but faster. That is why you will often see them on top of the scoreboard at the current state of veteran matches. A tier IV destroyer or dreadnought can kill a low tier player as easy but just not as fast and frequent. They will most likely end up with a better K/D but not so many kills. It will just take them a lot longer because they are slower and have less dps. In the end it is not the K/D that wins you the game it is just the number of total kills or 'kills minus deaths'.

Furthermore, inexperienced players will often position themself somewhere in the open without cover where they are easy targets for artilleries or they go solo and end up as easy kills for corvetts. Overall their positioning is just not ideal.

Low lvl players are also missing a full fleet with optimal modules so they cannot choose a ship to counter certain tactics and they also lack map awareness, reaction time and teamwork.

Other reasons why players switch to corvetts during the game are:

1) Corvetts become more effective during the late game as ships are more scattered;

2) If you die you will be back in the battle a lot quicker with a corvette than with a slow ship especially when your spawn is bad;

3) It will most likely surprise the enemy team if there suddenly is a corvette or artillery cruiser when there wasn't one before and it will take them some time to adjust their positioning and tactics.

In Onslough corvetts can also farm assault ships and fighters a lot quicker.

This all are reasons that favour corvetts and artillery cruisers in an average veteran game, which usually consists of maybe one lvl 50 player, one high ranked player and six low ranked low tier players in each team. Some of the reasons are experience based, some are skill based and but most cohere with the progression and match making system.

However this does not mean that corvetts and artillery cruisers are OP as almost all of the reasons I mentioned become a non-issue with more experience, skill, better and more ships and overall progression.

In a full tier IV match with only experienced players corvetts will die almost instantly as loadouts, positioning, map awareness, reaction time and teamwork are just much better. Artillery cruisers will also lose a lot of their effectiveness for the same reasons. I am sure it is the same in a full tier III match with mediocre skilled/experienced players.

So a lot of tier IV players just choose corvetts and artillery cruisers because they are the most effective classes in an average veteran game as you can farm low tier low lvl players quicker, not because they are actually OP. The only way I see how to fix this is to drastically reduce the stat gap between higher tier and lower tier ships and a much higher playerbase, so that you will always fight opponents of equal skill and at an equal state of progression. So basically rework the whole tier and progression system. The way it is now where low lvl tier II players have to fight lvl 50 tier IV players is just ridiculous.

Nerfing and buffing will only result in corvetts and artillery cruisers being either "OP" in an average veteran game or being completely useless in an actually balanced game (same tier/skill/experience/...).

Piglus#9360 posted (#post-166499)

There appears to be some miscommunication here. Unless the game info is wrong, you are not matched up against newbies but the same captain rank as you are. So you are already playing against people familiar with the game and any kind of domination is your fault or theirs.

Even in veteran I (lvl 50) get constantly matched against low level players simply because there are not enough high level players around. I don't think it is different in recruit. If it is different and low level players that have just started playing the game are not matched against high level players that can easily sealclub them then i don't have a problem with that.

Brother Belial#4215 posted (#post-166394)

So what you're saying is that we should remove the +10% bonus for maxing ships so people don't go back to recruit, and make the recruit queues longer because we might hurt someone's feelings? It's called getting better at the game. I didn't leave recrute till maintenance was removed. I go back because it's the way the game was made to be played.

I don't really care about the 10%, I doubt that 10% encourage anyone to go back to recruit. Imo what makes players go back to recruit is the BB system because a lot of players do not want to wait or pay for BB in veteran so they will go back to recruit to farm some credits while the veteran BB is on cool down. At least that seems the most efficient way of progressing right now.

So basicly if you want to progress fast you are encouraged to sealclub recruits every second game.

Without that encouragemet, I doubt that a lot of players would go back to recruit, except for reasons like unlocking new ships or playing with a friend that hasn't progressed so far. Maybe they also find veteran matches too challenging and go back to get better and to unlock more T2s or T3s before progressing further. I am fine with all this reasons.

But obviously that are just assumptions that seem logical to me. Maybe I am wrong and there are a lot of veterans that just enjoy going back to recruit for sealclubbing. Still I don't think that these "veterans" should be rewarded more than in veteran or legendary because the average skill level in recruit is much lower and therefore an experienced player will have a much higher chance of getting a high score and winning the game. So basicly right now you get rewarded more for something that is a lot easier to do.

Regarding longer queue times in recruit: As I already explained missing spots could be easily filled with bots because they will have less impact on the outcome of a match compared to veteran. So it is more important to have a high playerbase in veteran as it is in recruit to increase the chance of having a fair match that is not decided by a bot feeding the other team.

Regarding "It's called getting better at the game": I doubt that facing high skilled players before mastering the basics is a very effective way of getting better.

If you throw someone who cannot swim into a river he will not learn how to swim but he will drown.

And if you try to teach a kid that doesn't know how to add and subtract about derivation and integration you will most likely fail.

I can't think of a scenario where that kind of concept has proven to be very successful.

Regarding " it's the way the game was made to be played": I don't know how the game is meant to be played. However I doubt that the game is meant to frustrate new players and rewarding experienced players for doing so as that would ultimately be a very bad business concept.