FORUMS


GnlPublic

Statistics



POSTS



Snib#1627 posted (#post-40874)


It's a bit naive to think that feedback could change anything about this, it's too costly to develop (both in time and money) to do a 180° after you implemented it unless your player numbers tank and you have no choice.




Remember the Concorde. (Look up Concorde fallacy.)


ElPoto#7136 posted (#post-41370)


I mean, right now our first options are a "light" dreadnought and a "heavy" destroyer, but what is the real difference?



I understand. The Gora is much like a Dreadnought and the Invictus is much like a destroyer. But they have access to very different modules and weapons. Eg destroyers have the generator, dreadnoughts the broadside.



Then I got enough xp to get the next destroyer but I don't think I want it, I mean that is the same as the "trader" one we already have available and since I really cannot see any difference what's the point? The first destroyer still looks better than this other we get at level 15.



The point is, that you can't customise the Trader version. What you are unlocking is a fully customisable version, meaning you can adapt modules, briefings and visuals to your liking.


Personally, I think thats great. However, I don't think it's perfect either. I don't think the choice of your ship should have anything to do with your rank. I would prefer you could unlock any ship and any module at any time for a certain amount of currency (premium or std currency).



I've stopped playing for several weeks already and the above is part of the reason, then there is the limited options in weapons, the more advanced all seem focused on "disabling" powers, why I cannot equip more badass (more damage/range) torpedoes when I advance instead of the ones with the (gay) draining ability?



Control abilities are extremely powerful, though not op. Once I was in a match and we got stomped by two destroyers that would come up close and scramble the sensors. It greatly reduces your chances to fight back. It's not op, though, because we just focussed on fighting from a distance with artillery cruisers. The match turned a little in our favour, but we still lost.


I think that this is a great thing about the game right now. It is quite well balanced. What matters most is player skill, teamwork and tactics.


Gamatech#6679 posted (#post-41021)


Fleet Maintenance Costs. Please don't make them too severe at later tiers. They need to be considerable, but not as out of proportion as a nuke on a single Corvette. War Thunder suffers greatly from this. Did you just loose your top-tier jet fighter? Better get grinding for the next three days so you can take it out again. I really don't want that in a game as faced paced as Dreadnought.

I'm still thinking about Maintenance costs and tiers.



In War Thunder and WoT there is the problem that in WWII there had been a tremendous arms race going on. If this real life fact wasn't balanced out for in the game, it would be unplayable. In Dreadnought, this does not apply. Sidegrading like in PS2 is totally viable. A problem, however, might be that PS2 is still very engaging, because it is a Sandbox game with lots of different vehicles and possible playstyles, making the game extremely engaging even in the long run. There are upgrades available in PS2. They give advantages but never do they make you op. Weapons are all very balanced. There is no weapon that is really better than another one. It's all about what best fits the situation and your playstyle. The standard issue weapons, for example, usually lack some attachment options in contrast to unlocked weapons. But they are still used a lot because they are very good weapons.


So, Dreadnought is not a sandbox game. It only has matches so far and will feature some solo content. So I don't know how viable sidegrading is in such an environment, as I am not a video game specialist or anything. All I can say is that, as a player, if I unlock a high tier item and I can't use it because maintenance cost makes it seem unplayable to me, I feel cheated and won't play that item anymore (and possibly give up the game). This was especially severe in World of Tanks. Even if I won in a high tier game, I would lose money as a free player and barely scrape by as a premium (don't know if that changed, because I just don't play it anymore even though I have some premium currency left). I played tier 1 games instead (and was accused of seal clubbing, but I just love the Renault). Similarly in War Thunder (though this game I still play sometimes, I just stay away from higher tiers).


On grinding

Speaking about PS2: There is only little grinding involved. If you really want to grind, you can get cosmetic rewards like special armour and weapons. Sometimes you grind to get in game currency to unlock a weapon or such. But you are never locked in a progression grid (meaning, you don't need to use a certain item to grind to another, like in War Thunder, for example where you pretty much have to use vehicles from the previous tier to unlock a newer tier vehicle) and never does it feel like the grind is unattainable. However, the premium account makes the grind easier (but not necessary) and that makes it attractive.

Repair costs are pretty much the reason why I gave up playing WT and WoT on higher tiers. That and endless grinding which for me just seems like work. I have enough work irl.


UnLimiTeD#2482 posted (#post-40965)


To say nothing of the fact I sure hope the lower tier visuals can be kept on higher tiers, I don't like my ships growing fat.



Oh yes, good point. I absolutely hate it when high tier aestethics are totally ott. It's a pest especially in rpgs. Where you got to have the ridiculously shining and blinking swords the size of a phone pole to do certain dungeons and such. The lower tiers are usually much more visually pleasing. Gods bless vanity loadouts like in Conan Unchained.


Your post made me think. Another possibility to unlock new things is unlocking slots, like they do on cars in APB. New versions of ships could eg just boast new slots or new variants of weapons, but keep the basic stats unchanged. Also, they could unlock new cosmetical features.


Re; unlocking the same module for the next tier of ship.




  • Yes, this would 'feel' bad to a player. I would highly recommend that once you unlock a given module, either A. Its unlocked for everything, every tier... or B, if the later tiers grant that module a power increase (more missiles launched, more dmg, whatever).. then when you buy the lower tiers, owning them should grant a discount to the re-purchase of the 'upgraded' module




  • OR, you could simply require the player to have bought the T1 missile launcher (example) before allowing them to unlock the T2, T3, T4, etc etc.... and simply 'price' the modules cheaper then they otherwise would be (eg; Vulture missiles might total cost 4000 FP for all 5 tiers, but the Purge nuke, a T5 only item, might cost 3500 FP outright for just the single module)




  • Basically, if the functionality is 100% the same on the module.. across tiers, then unlocking it once should unlock it for all. Unlocking the SAME thing multiple times does NOT feel good unless it is INSANELY cheap.... an example of this is Planetside 2 gun scopes... Every gun has its own scopes, all scopes are the same.. but you have to rebuy them.... However, a gun costs 700-1000 FP, a scope for the gun costs 30. It doesn't 'hurt' my pocket book so much to buy something for 30fp every so often on a similar item to one I already own.

    -p-

    Monetization ... still talking fleet repair costs smile uhg.





I concur on pretty much everything. (PS2 ftw, btw. Its a great example where you can go in the game without any progression, still be an asset to your team, but still want to unlock some improvements. I spent loads of money on that game, but you clearly don't need to.)


Maintenance costs

Come on, just forget about that, k? :-) It ruined WoT and WT for me (casual player speaking). In the end, I mostly used the first few tiers, because I didn't have to think about stuff like maintenance too much and could use my favourite vehicles as much as I wanted.


Progression 2.0

I am not sure I understood. So if I want to play with Jupiter Arms ships, I'll progress their tree. But if I want to play Corvettes (of any manufacturer) I still have to progress manufacturer trees anyway? Thus, I would have to progress in the manufacturers tree? Or will the trees br more like bushes where I can unlock a tier 2 Corvette by playing that manufacturer's tier 1 ship OR any tier 1 Corvette? (Btw, seems that the Athos is tier 1. Please keep it like this.) :-)


Monetization

The way it is now is good, from my perspective at least. You can buy vanity items, but also modules and ships you unlocked. For me, with very limited time available to play, the latter is a big plus. I don't need to grind the funds to buy a ship I unlocked. And the pricing is reasonable.


On a side note: What happens with ships and modules I bought with hard money? Will they be available as soon as I unlock them or will the currency be refunded?


Hero ships

Good ideas. Only little problem I see: The founders' pack contains no ship by Jupiter Arms (or did I miss sth?). So anyone who wants to boost that manufacturer's tree with a hero ship will have to get a new one.


Ps: Please bear with me on typos. Writing on my phone on my way to work.


Edit pps: Hallo aus der Schweiz. :-)

Hello fellow Captains,


I received my beta key a few weeks ago and am now joining the forum. Good game. Looking forward to seeing the finished product. Community seems nice too. :-)


See you in the skies.