Theobald#3611 posted (#post-114967)

obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-114625)

Theobald#3611 posted (#post-114622)

There's and always will be free players in recruit, and sometimes veteran in the end (by harvesting free xp and non-taxed money).

You just want to play elite gratuitously.

The only problem in the game is the lack of tuning options in the recruit tiers.

You're grossly overestimating the survivability of this game. If player retention is like a bucket of water, progression 2.0 carved the entire base of the bucket away. The game is a pipe through which players flow now, instead of having player retention, the devs are only sustaining it with player THROUGHPUT. Eventually, they'll run out of players who haven't seen enough and moved on.

The game in its previous state was good enough that I'm willing to stick around and keep trying (in spite of STILL not having any information about what was supposedly wrong about the post I'm still waiting on a reply about from the devs).

I'm not letting go because I've seen how good the game COULD be if they didn't keep forcing stupid "monetisation" decisions in spite of the evidence of the entire history of the free-to-play gaming market proving them to be bad ideas.

Yeah yeah yeah as always, you're acting like you now everything better than anyone, including the dev team, the market, the numbers about retention and such that you don't know and physically have no access to, the design goals, and game design as a whole as if it wasn't even a job in itself and was something anyone with a keyboard could make master classes of.

When at some days you keep playing with the same people over and over again for hours. That does in fact give a good estimate of size of The playerbase. I'm currently at a stage where I recognize player names and know which team will win or lose. SPLIN73R for example usually leaves matches with his TIV destro with a kdr of 13 or higher and I meet him a lot in Random solo queue. Another strong indicator of the size of The community. It takes neither an expert nor a professional nor the actual numbers to know that the player retention is bad.

Might I add that you are being quite rude? There are people genuinely being frustrated and you come across with this superior you know nothing attitude. Neither helpful nor likeable nor respectable and definitely not true either. They have played the game thus have firsthand experience which they are sharing. If you have had a different experience that's fine - but don't discredit other peoples opinions and feelings just because "you disagree as your individual experience has been a better one".

Oberon#9012 posted (#post-114426)

You're making me proud son. Keep it up.

oh boy our master is a loli hentai creep ? D:

I'd rather pay my 10~15 / months istead of going through this god awfull grind.

even if you have elite status a well equipped T IV still requires at least 200 games (if you're a genius at this game with a miraculous win loss ratio).

T V is gonna take at least another 400 hours by their current xp progression model and that was ONE ship.

600* 15 = ?

9000 games !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WITH ELITE

this is a realistic estimate. you may calculate the hours you are going t need to play yourself from that.

call me lazy cuz I hate grinding but In my entire lifetime I have played over 4000 games in LoL. But I never had to grind a single hour of it cause at all times the game felt fair and fairly competitive and balanced to me so these proudly invested roughly 3000 hours of my life I played and payed for fun not for achievements - money well spent.

100% not the case for Dreadnought. Monetization or not this is the very definition of a flawed design strategy - the game is quite literately unfair and feels more like work than recreation - hence that fun coefficient currently is quite low. In fact LoL proves it is even a sub par design strategy in order to monetize and until they change their philosophy I'm not going to spend even a single $

Robocraft at first thought they had to incentivise their players to spend money and underwent a very painful almost bankruptcy until they completely threw that idea over board and decided equal power on the battlefield for everyone - guess who's spent all his allowance on the game suddenly...

obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-97568)

The old progression system had flaws, but they were flaws which could have VERY easily been fixed. They still CAN make this right by going back to the old system, and building from that point.

• 
  

  Old system had linear progression. The ships were balanced, so there was no need to lock ANY specific ships behind a significant grind wall. It makes even less sense to lock ALL the ships behind a grind wall, where you have to use heavily-nerfed versions of ships (sometimes not even the ship you want) in order to "earn" access to the real ship - eventually - at t4/5. Old system was superior. Also, unlike progression 2.0, the old system is open to being reworked into a sensible version (see below).

  
  


• 
  

  With progression 2.0, they created a wide selection of reskins of the existing ships (and pretend they're "new ships"). The reskins make sense to keep as PAID COSMETICS. This is a model which has been extremely successful in literally EVERY COMPETENT FREE-TO-PLAY GAME EVER. Using them as "new" ships, especially when they're pure linear upgrades in every meaningful way, rather than actually being unique or varied in any real sense, just makes the stupidity of it more obvious. You're already putting no effort into distinguishing them, why not ACTUALLY keep them as the same ship - AND make more money off them than the way you're doing?

  
  


• 
  

  Modules used to be locked to specific captain levels. Now, you unlock modules by using the ship they're for. Each ship has to unlock the relevant module independently. Even if it's the exact same identical module on 2 different ships, you unlock them independently for the ships, NOT account-wide. The new system gives the ILLUSION of more freedom of choice about what to unlock, without offering even as much freedom as the old system did.

  
  


• 
  

  A logical solution would be to use the (objectively better) old system, but with one significant change: Instead of having fixed linear unlocks, give us tokens with each level, and let us unlock the modules and ships we WANT to play with. If the devs can be trusted with game balance (and before progression 2.0, they proved themselves to be very capable in that area), it should be viable for players to unlock anything we want. This also opens up the possibility for the unlock progression to be effectively infinite, and to scale when new items are added. At lower levels, players can earn tokens faster than they can earn the credits to unlock things with them. As we level up, the XP requirements for the next level keep increasing, meaning we will eventually burn through our tokens, and need to grind a bit to get the next new toy.

  
  

Such a system would encourage new players, and make it easy to get the important items - a selection of different ships and your own custom loadouts for them. As experience builds, the grind becomes a progressively higher wall to surmount, encouraging players to buy premium time - or they could even allow really high-level players (or players without the time to spare for the grind at higher levels even with premium bonus) to directly buy ship and/or upgrade tokens for a higher price. It would also open up the aforementioned option of using the already-made reskins of the ships as cosmetic items.

No need for forced monetisation with anti-fun maintenance fees. No need for a forced grind wall with an obnoxious tier system that pretends 15 ships are 50. Room for actually NEW content to be added in such a way that it doesn't have to be locked to specific ships which players may have moved beyond already.

we share the same opinion.

This is literately an ideal strategy for both players and monetization for the company. The Tier system as it is right now is really just a hassle and I am mostly playing recruit anyway as the chance for having fair fights is in fact almost guaranteed as mostly skill sets the players apart not their two tier advantage.

I can understand why people would want to play different tiers though.

T1 has faster moving ships and therefore punishes bad positioning less. Where TV becomes more and more strategical. The playstyles change drastically.

But said features don't need need to be hidden behind a huge grind wall.

I got very very very discouraged today unlocking the Lorica only to realize im 50000 credits short and will likely need to play another 30~40 games in recruit to buy it AND THEN ANOTHER 200 with the lorica before I will have the desired modules for it? But what for? A small chance at having a fair game ~_~

I hope you realize how controversial that is. A game is fun when it is fair. Not when you can outlvl and sealclub....

obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-97568)

The old progression system had flaws, but they were flaws which could have VERY easily been fixed. They still CAN make this right by going back to the old system, and building from that point.

• 
  

  Old system had linear progression. The ships were balanced, so there was no need to lock ANY specific ships behind a significant grind wall. It makes even less sense to lock ALL the ships behind a grind wall, where you have to use heavily-nerfed versions of ships (sometimes not even the ship you want) in order to "earn" access to the real ship - eventually - at t4/5. Old system was superior. Also, unlike progression 2.0, the old system is open to being reworked into a sensible version (see below).

  
  


• 
  

  With progression 2.0, they created a wide selection of reskins of the existing ships (and pretend they're "new ships"). The reskins make sense to keep as PAID COSMETICS. This is a model which has been extremely successful in literally EVERY COMPETENT FREE-TO-PLAY GAME EVER. Using them as "new" ships, especially when they're pure linear upgrades in every meaningful way, rather than actually being unique or varied in any real sense, just makes the stupidity of it more obvious. You're already putting no effort into distinguishing them, why not ACTUALLY keep them as the same ship - AND make more money off them than the way you're doing?

  
  


• 
  

  Modules used to be locked to specific captain levels. Now, you unlock modules by using the ship they're for. Each ship has to unlock the relevant module independently. Even if it's the exact same identical module on 2 different ships, you unlock them independently for the ships, NOT account-wide. The new system gives the ILLUSION of more freedom of choice about what to unlock, without offering even as much freedom as the old system did.

  
  


• 
  

  A logical solution would be to use the (objectively better) old system, but with one significant change: Instead of having fixed linear unlocks, give us tokens with each level, and let us unlock the modules and ships we WANT to play with. If the devs can be trusted with game balance (and before progression 2.0, they proved themselves to be very capable in that area), it should be viable for players to unlock anything we want. This also opens up the possibility for the unlock progression to be effectively infinite, and to scale when new items are added. At lower levels, players can earn tokens faster than they can earn the credits to unlock things with them. As we level up, the XP requirements for the next level keep increasing, meaning we will eventually burn through our tokens, and need to grind a bit to get the next new toy.

  
  

Such a system would encourage new players, and make it easy to get the important items - a selection of different ships and your own custom loadouts for them. As experience builds, the grind becomes a progressively higher wall to surmount, encouraging players to buy premium time - or they could even allow really high-level players (or players without the time to spare for the grind at higher levels even with premium bonus) to directly buy ship and/or upgrade tokens for a higher price. It would also open up the aforementioned option of using the already-made reskins of the ships as cosmetic items.

No need for forced monetisation with anti-fun maintenance fees. No need for a forced grind wall with an obnoxious tier system that pretends 15 ships are 50. Room for actually NEW content to be added in such a way that it doesn't have to be locked to specific ships which players may have moved beyond already.

we share the same opinion.

This is literately an ideal strategy for both players and monetization for the company. The Tier system as it is right now is really just a hassle and I am mostly playing recruit anyway as the chance for having fair fights is in fact almost guaranteed as mostly skill sets the players apart not their two tier advantage.

I can understand why people would want to play different tiers though.

T1 has faster moving ships and therefore punishes bad positioning less. Where TV becomes more and more strategical. The playstyles change drastically.

But said features don't need need to be hidden behind a huge grind wall.

I got very very very discouraged today unlocking the Lorica only to realize im 50000 credits short and will likely need to play another 30~40 games in recruit to buy it AND THEN ANOTHER 200 with the lorica before I will have the desired modules for it? But what for? A small chance at having a fair game ~_~

I hope you realize how controversial that is. A game is fun when it is fair. Not when you can outlvl and sealclub....

my friends and I literately spend 90% of our time trying to find each other to group up on the map...

one of the most common phrases in our conversations is "I have no idea where you guys are right now"

obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-97568)

The old progression system had flaws, but they were flaws which could have VERY easily been fixed. They still CAN make this right by going back to the old system, and building from that point.

• 
  

  Old system had linear progression. The ships were balanced, so there was no need to lock ANY specific ships behind a significant grind wall. It makes even less sense to lock ALL the ships behind a grind wall, where you have to use heavily-nerfed versions of ships (sometimes not even the ship you want) in order to "earn" access to the real ship - eventually - at t4/5. Old system was superior. Also, unlike progression 2.0, the old system is open to being reworked into a sensible version (see below).

  
  


• 
  

  With progression 2.0, they created a wide selection of reskins of the existing ships (and pretend they're "new ships"). The reskins make sense to keep as PAID COSMETICS. This is a model which has been extremely successful in literally EVERY COMPETENT FREE-TO-PLAY GAME EVER. Using them as "new" ships, especially when they're pure linear upgrades in every meaningful way, rather than actually being unique or varied in any real sense, just makes the stupidity of it more obvious. You're already putting no effort into distinguishing them, why not ACTUALLY keep them as the same ship - AND make more money off them than the way you're doing?

  
  


• 
  

  Modules used to be locked to specific captain levels. Now, you unlock modules by using the ship they're for. Each ship has to unlock the relevant module independently. Even if it's the exact same identical module on 2 different ships, you unlock them independently for the ships, NOT account-wide. The new system gives the ILLUSION of more freedom of choice about what to unlock, without offering even as much freedom as the old system did.

  
  


• 
  

  A logical solution would be to use the (objectively better) old system, but with one significant change: Instead of having fixed linear unlocks, give us tokens with each level, and let us unlock the modules and ships we WANT to play with. If the devs can be trusted with game balance (and before progression 2.0, they proved themselves to be very capable in that area), it should be viable for players to unlock anything we want. This also opens up the possibility for the unlock progression to be effectively infinite, and to scale when new items are added. At lower levels, players can earn tokens faster than they can earn the credits to unlock things with them. As we level up, the XP requirements for the next level keep increasing, meaning we will eventually burn through our tokens, and need to grind a bit to get the next new toy.

  
  

Such a system would encourage new players, and make it easy to get the important items - a selection of different ships and your own custom loadouts for them. As experience builds, the grind becomes a progressively higher wall to surmount, encouraging players to buy premium time - or they could even allow really high-level players (or players without the time to spare for the grind at higher levels even with premium bonus) to directly buy ship and/or upgrade tokens for a higher price. It would also open up the aforementioned option of using the already-made reskins of the ships as cosmetic items.

No need for forced monetisation with anti-fun maintenance fees. No need for a forced grind wall with an obnoxious tier system that pretends 15 ships are 50. Room for actually NEW content to be added in such a way that it doesn't have to be locked to specific ships which players may have moved beyond already.

we share the same opinion.

This is literately an ideal strategy for both players and monetization for the company. The Tier system as it is right now is really just a hassle and I am mostly playing recruit anyway as the chance for having fair fights is in fact almost guaranteed as mostly skill sets the players apart not their two tier advantage.

I can understand why people would want to play different tiers though.

T1 has faster moving ships and therefore punishes bad positioning less. Where TV becomes more and more strategical. The playstyles change drastically.

But said features don't need need to be hidden behind a huge grind wall.

I got very very very discouraged today unlocking the Lorica only to realize im 50000 credits short and will likely need to play another 30~40 games in recruit to buy it AND THEN ANOTHER 200 with the lorica before I will have the desired modules for it? But what for? A small chance at having a fair game ~_~

I hope you realize how controversial that is. A game is fun when it is fair. Not when you can outlvl and sealclub....

obliviondoll#5677 posted (#post-97568)

The old progression system had flaws, but they were flaws which could have VERY easily been fixed. They still CAN make this right by going back to the old system, and building from that point.

• 
  

  Old system had linear progression. The ships were balanced, so there was no need to lock ANY specific ships behind a significant grind wall. It makes even less sense to lock ALL the ships behind a grind wall, where you have to use heavily-nerfed versions of ships (sometimes not even the ship you want) in order to "earn" access to the real ship - eventually - at t4/5. Old system was superior. Also, unlike progression 2.0, the old system is open to being reworked into a sensible version (see below).

  
  


• 
  

  With progression 2.0, they created a wide selection of reskins of the existing ships (and pretend they're "new ships"). The reskins make sense to keep as PAID COSMETICS. This is a model which has been extremely successful in literally EVERY COMPETENT FREE-TO-PLAY GAME EVER. Using them as "new" ships, especially when they're pure linear upgrades in every meaningful way, rather than actually being unique or varied in any real sense, just makes the stupidity of it more obvious. You're already putting no effort into distinguishing them, why not ACTUALLY keep them as the same ship - AND make more money off them than the way you're doing?

  
  


• 
  

  Modules used to be locked to specific captain levels. Now, you unlock modules by using the ship they're for. Each ship has to unlock the relevant module independently. Even if it's the exact same identical module on 2 different ships, you unlock them independently for the ships, NOT account-wide. The new system gives the ILLUSION of more freedom of choice about what to unlock, without offering even as much freedom as the old system did.

  
  


• 
  

  A logical solution would be to use the (objectively better) old system, but with one significant change: Instead of having fixed linear unlocks, give us tokens with each level, and let us unlock the modules and ships we WANT to play with. If the devs can be trusted with game balance (and before progression 2.0, they proved themselves to be very capable in that area), it should be viable for players to unlock anything we want. This also opens up the possibility for the unlock progression to be effectively infinite, and to scale when new items are added. At lower levels, players can earn tokens faster than they can earn the credits to unlock things with them. As we level up, the XP requirements for the next level keep increasing, meaning we will eventually burn through our tokens, and need to grind a bit to get the next new toy.

  
  

Such a system would encourage new players, and make it easy to get the important items - a selection of different ships and your own custom loadouts for them. As experience builds, the grind becomes a progressively higher wall to surmount, encouraging players to buy premium time - or they could even allow really high-level players (or players without the time to spare for the grind at higher levels even with premium bonus) to directly buy ship and/or upgrade tokens for a higher price. It would also open up the aforementioned option of using the already-made reskins of the ships as cosmetic items.

No need for forced monetisation with anti-fun maintenance fees. No need for a forced grind wall with an obnoxious tier system that pretends 15 ships are 50. Room for actually NEW content to be added in such a way that it doesn't have to be locked to specific ships which players may have moved beyond already.

we share the same opinion.

This is literately an ideal strategy for both players and monetization for the company. The Tier system as it is right now is really just a hassle and I am mostly playing recruit anyway as the chance for having fair fights is in fact almost guaranteed as mostly skill sets the players apart not their two tier advantage.

I can understand why people would want to play different tiers though.

T1 has faster moving ships and therefore punishes bad positioning less. Where TV becomes more and more strategical. The playstyles change drastically.

But said features don't need need to be hidden behind a huge grind wall.

I got very very very discouraged today unlocking the Lorica only to realize im 50000 credits short and will likely need to play another 30~40 games in recruit to buy it AND THEN ANOTHER 200 with the lorica before I will have the desired modules for it? But what for? A small chance at having a fair game ~_~

I hope you realize how controversial that is. A game is fun when it is fair. Not when you can outlvl and sealclub....

BadAlchemy#4871 posted (#post-114341)

Also at the OP - Look at the Officer Brief you get from the Vindicta - double speed when setting energy to Engines - you can easily out run corvettes.

Since when can T2 use officer briefings

all of your explanatiosn wouldnt explain the always invis part though.

attacking or using modules supposedly breaks its' invis