In most civilised countries, privacy rights are protected and can't be waived in a contract. That said, after looking through the agreements for the Greybox website and the Dreadnought EULA on this site, I can't find the line you've shown. The phrase "no expectation of privacy" is only found in relation to third-party communications (group chat being an example) where you couldn't reasonably consider it a conduit for private information. I also never saw the quoted line when I accepted the agreement I accepted to play the game. I can also easily look up the privacy policies, which contradict (and overrule) the quote you've posted here. When there is a separate privacy policy, that policy's privacy statements take precedence over any such statements within the main document. And even so, neither document can overrule the minimum legal protections offered in most countries.

It's also worth noting that unlike most professionally-written terms for games, Greybox's agreements lack a clause protecting them against being invalidated in the event of a portion of the agreement being voided. In most regions, only the offending clause will be removed, but having a proper protection in place so the "spirit of the terms" will be honoured as far as can legally be enforced is a common inclusion in many license agreements and terms of use documents. Its absence is notable in its failure to protect the document's integrity in the event of a dispute of the legality of terms like the one quoted above.

It's also worth noting that there's a very real risk of this blowing up in their faces if they try to actually act as if a clause like this was legal. It's highly probable their lawyers have told them it's worth having such a claim in their policy in case of some event beyond their control, but they shouldn't count on it to protect them if they actually were to try and abuse it in any way. I mean, this is the same Greybox who spent 6 months arguing that maintenance was here to stay, so I wouldn't necessarily count on them paying attention to good advice. Good luck on not needing to fight that particular battle, I guess? Even if the law is blatantly on your side, it wouldn't be a fun case to be part of.

No matter how low the base payout goes, it CANNOT go negative, so the end result is still an improvement over the maintenance system. And I'm pretty sure there would be just as much of an uproar - particularly given the way it's been described - if the base payouts are cut hard enough to be what you're worried about.

To be comparable to how maintenance penalises players, there would need to be routine payments of less than 200 credits for a match. That's blatantly ridiculous and would be noticed and complained about just as much as maintenance is complained about now. Similarly, if they skyrocket the prices to compensate, they'll be needing to literally multiply the prices by 8 to 10 to keep the progression rate stupid enough to be comparable. That, too, would earn the ire of the community.

I'm not saying they won't do it - after all, this is the same dev team who spent more than HALF A YEAR insisting maintenance was here to stay. But if they do, they're going to find that it's not improving the situation.

Xenophon#7149 posted (#post-123703)

DN_DivumVexillum#9674 posted (#post-120695)

Developers are well aware of the concerns mentioned in this thread, and are actively working to remedy these and many more of the problems identified with the current squad system, balance issues from sub-class to tiers, and much more.

Please be patient, Captains.

Check out Community Hot Topics #6 for some insight into what is coming your way!

As a relatively new player I am hoping that the Tier system will be addressed. I.e. binned in favour of a more sensible system that favours more customisation and ownership of your fleet.

They spent a LOOOONG time (over 6 months) insisting that maintenance was here to stay and it's for the good of the game (well, the company) to keep it. Eventually, they've admitted it was bad (actually described it using words we can't use on the forum, which is funny). Now it's going to be thrown out.

The tier system was added at the same time, and has seen almost as much persistent negativity, with the same "we need it to monetise" insistence from the devs. It's painfully obvious not only that they don't, but WHY they don't. Hopefully, we'll get lucky and they'll realise we're right and rethink that as well.

Redwyrm#3695 posted (#post-124237)

Senoj Nol#6687 posted (#post-124141)

Vindicator#5138 posted (#post-124131)

"For some reason hangar is very GPU heavy. My card slowly overheating to 70-80C the longer i stay in hangar but at ~60C in combat."



This is because in combat you are moving, causing airflow over your ship and thereby cooling it off.


But what about space battles then? smile

Space is really, REALLY cold.


More seriously though, this has been a major point of issue in optimisation for a long time on PC as well. It's not just a PS4 problem.

If your fleet is all T2, and you queue for recruit, you can be thrown into veteran matches, as mentioned.

Worth noting: You will NOT be paying maintenance if you queued for recruit, even if you're fighting in a veteran game.

I have a lot of issues with the tier system, but this thread is about why maintenance is objectively an awful core concept.

Apparently the devs are listening. They've literally designed a new system based around REWARDING players instead of punishing them, which is intended to replace maintenance. The thing with the system from World of Warcraft is that it wasn't actually a bad system at its core - you still earned plenty of XP normally, and by describing the bonus as such, it made players feel good even when taking breaks from the game.

Maintenance, at its core, is a penalty system. The "battle ready" system is an actual reversal of policy from the devs - especially in light of the repeated "maintenance is here to stay" comments we saw over the months since it was added. It's particularly good to read the devs openly using words we're not allowed to post on the forums to describe a system they defended so hard for so long.

They literally CAN'T re-frame what maintenance is the way World of Warcraft re-framed its problem with XP. The new system is an actually new system. With how the new system works, it's impossible - literally impossible - to have the problems maintenance costs produced where a bad game will result in a loss of credits instead of profit.

Just a reminder that the devs are actually listening to us (6 months late) and scrapping maintenance.

Now all they need to do is realise we're right about the tier system as well, and maybe even turn that on its head like they're doing with maintenance. Then we can start getting back on track and I might look forward to reinstalling the game.

After 6 months of promising "maintenance is here to stay" the devs finally realised they were wrong.

ONE point to them. Finally. Now we just need them to turn the tier system on its head (or throw it out) as well, and we'll be back to making progress from the system we had before progression 2.0

It sounds like the new "Battle ready" (working title) system is basically the equivalent of what Blizzard did here, except it involves a complete rework of the mechanics.

I'm honestly surprised at this point that the devs are finally listening - but it's a pleasant surprise.


I get it, easy mistake to make, one number off, and you got them the wrong way around.