tier discrepancy in pvp too big

Game Discussion PvP
21

1 hour ago, niripas said:

Even more? You can hit R8 and build your first destroyer under 100 co-op games, starting from fresh new account. 

 

 

Ok. If you say I believe you.

 

But how many co-op games do you need to build R11 destroyer?

 

I think many more games.

So I need more games to build R11 destroyer then R8 (everything logical until now) just to see when I play PvP that R8 is buffed against R11.

 

This is exactlly why I believe that high rank should be better then lower rank and that useing buffs for lower ranks is not fair at all, until we have this system of ships that have different ranks.

 

22

On 2/16/2018 at 4:45 PM, Seraphym1 said:

The buffs are killing any incentive to advance certain ships. right now if you have the skills you are fine working up to about r12 and that’s it. Dessies are a joke now. In what universe does a r9 inti just dominate a r14 dessy. The dessys missile turret is larger than the little inti that can kill it (if the guy is good enough) in a few seconds. I know people dont like getting trashed as they learn the ropes in a new Tier, but that is the way it is supposed to be (the old T4 grind). “Fun ball” and “everybody’s a winner” is the ridiculous type of concept that is slowly destroying society in the United States. We don’t need that here. We don’t want the weak feeling good about there weakness, We want them to be motivated to run and hit the gym…or learn to box.  Bring back the Tiers! Please.

 

I agree. I never liked mixed tiers. Many people stopped playing when passive modifiers (resistances and damage buff) got introduced. This was and still is a bad move.

I am not against mixed tiers, but I think that providing bonuses to weaker ships is a wrong move that doesn’t have much sense. None of this would be a problem if the loyalty contracts would have the Rank range of 11-15 in Tier V and if we would have 3 difficulty curves - easy, medium, hard. Ships of the same rank only. But instead, I see Rank 8 ships in Rank 15 now. People just rush the tree instead of developing it equally and proportionally, knowing nothing of the game, then ragequit and criticize that the game sucks.

 

This game needs so little to be a crown jewel of a space shooter, but developers are too stubborn to realize that.

23

5 hours ago, _terrorblade said:

We’re losing players because of this how? It’s one of the main reasons we now have such quick solo queue. before this queue was very long for t4/t5

Many games have this for non-competitive play

I’d rather have the competitive play and work my way up to the advanced Tiers after learning in the lower. But I guess I’m just too old fashioned.

24

So I have not been very constructive. Sorry. I always have taught If you must criticize have a solution ready.

 

So my small contribution.

 

What about spreading things out more. Say a 3 Tier system built into the MM that would place only certain groups of ranks together ie: r1-5 / r6-10 / r11-15. It would at least let the ships the players worked hard for compete with those that have the same amount of time invested in working their way up. Without the bonuses the tier jumpers will be shredded like they always have been. “bought the ship but not the skill” is after all still an available taunt.

 

I have invested my time here as I believe this game has enormous potential. Somebody come up with something for the devs, They will listen if we can give them something solid.

25

5 hours ago, _terrorblade said:

We’re losing players because of this how? It’s one of the main reasons we now have such quick solo queue. before this queue was very long for t4/t5

Many games have this for non-competitive play

 

I don’t believe that we have single player here who like to watch when he is waiting to hotjoin how one team is planting last bomb or how one team have all becons in domination …

I would prefer to participate in all games that I play from start to end of game.

26

27 minutes ago, GatoGrande said:

I don’t believe that we have single player here who like to watch when he is waiting to hotjoin how one team is planting last bomb or how one team have all becons in domination …

I would prefer to participate in all games that I play from start to end of game.

6

Join in progress often creates more problems than it solves.

An enemy ship can suddenly spawn and attack, you get 1-2 second lag spikes if you do not use an SSD. I have an HDD and when someone joins, I get a 2-second lag spike.

There is a tool that can fix that, but it’s too much hassle for me. This issue should be solved by developers themselves. One easy way would be to just remove join-in-progress.

I prefer to wait 1-2 minutes more than to join in a match, where are 3 beacons are already captured by the enemy, or when the enemy is just planting his last bomb on our station.

 

It almost feels like developers want to ruin this game on purpose.

 

27

21 minutes ago, Koromac said:

Join in progress often creates more problems than it solves.

An enemy ship can suddenly spawn and attack,

 

Indeed. No one like this.

 

21 minutes ago, Koromac said:

you get 1-2 second lag spikes

 

Yep me too.

 

21 minutes ago, Koromac said:

 

if you do not use an SSD.

 

What? Wait really? I didn’t know this. So I have to instal game on SSD.

I’ll try just to see if this work.

 

21 minutes ago, Koromac said:

 

There is a tool that can fix that, but it’s too much hassle for me.

 

Just temporarily fiks …so not good.

 

21 minutes ago, Koromac said:

 

This issue should be solved by developers themselves.

 

Well this would be way how to improve game expiriance here.

I don’t know what are devs waiting for?

 

21 minutes ago, Koromac said:

 

One easy way would be to just remove join-in-progress.

I prefer to wait 1-2 minutes more

 

Yep me too. 

 

21 minutes ago, Koromac said:

…

than to join in a match, where are 3 beacons are already captured by the enemy, or when the enemy is just planting his last bomb on our station.

 

Terrible. I agree.

 

21 minutes ago, Koromac said:

 

It almost feels like developers want to ruin this game on purpose.

 

 

Well this I don’t believe.

28

I like hot join, so i dont have to sit in a hangar facepalming from idiocracy of people in general chat, since there is nothing else.

And I am sure more positive after waiting for less than a minute, hot join the lost match and then join another one within another minute, rather than sitting in a queue for 10 minutes and then lose/win within a minute anyways and wait another 10 minutes.

 

 

29

 

1 hour ago, Koromac said:

Join in progress often creates more problems than it solves.

An enemy ship can suddenly spawn and attack, you get 1-2 second lag spikes if you do not use an SSD. I have an HDD and when someone joins, I get a 2-second lag spike.

There is a tool that can fix that, but it’s too much hassle for me. This issue should be solved by developers themselves. One easy way would be to just remove join-in-progress.

I prefer to wait 1-2 minutes more than to join in a match, where are 3 beacons are already captured by the enemy, or when the enemy is just planting his last bomb on our station.

 

It almost feels like developers want to ruin this game on purpose.

 

 

1 hour ago, GatoGrande said:

Indeed. No one like this.

Yep me too.

What? Wait really? I didn’t know this. So I have to instal game on SSD.

I’ll try just to see if this work.

Just temporarily fiks …so not good.

 

temporary or not - seems to work for some people. No harm in trying.

 

 

Quote

Try this:

  • freshly booted system (no browsers launched, nothing)

  • unpack this in your game folder

  • double click

  • wait for it to finish 

  • run the game

  • launch co-op or pvp

  • check if the freezing still occurs

 

for verification purposes, launch only pvp or coop. If you’ll launch to any other mode, precached data will be overwritten

as I said it’s crude and slow, but seems to be working. 

 

30

2 hours ago, xKostyan said:

I like hot join…

 

 

Good for you.

We all know that you are spacial. ![:006:](<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/006.png “:006:”)

31

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 4:17 PM, xKostyan said:

 

 

Why?? Just because something has a bigger “rank” number, it does not mean it should be much better than anything

lol this is really outrageous, mildly  speaking !

The ranks were obviously implemented to show/state progression and naturally higher rank ships should have been from all aspects better. Climb ranks, progression - no matter what, here we are just going backwards or should I say back and forth but 1 step ahead 10 steps backwards.

What you are saying is just a poor excuse to justify this  chaotic situation. A somewhat glorification to the “new order” hoping people will adopt that view and “enjoy” it… I do remember you pointing out to me I should totally ignore a certain individual’s posts. Somehow I have the feeling I should be ignoring yours.

 

 

32

5 hours ago, Seraphym1 said:

What about spreading things out more. Say a 3 Tier system built into the MM that would place only certain groups of ranks together ie: r1-5 / r6-10 / r11-15. It would at least let the ships the players worked hard for compete, with those that have the same amount of time invested in working their way up. Without the bonuses, the tier jumpers will be shredded like they always have been. “bought the ship but not the skill” is after all still an available taunt.

 

There was such a suggestion that was made by me and a few others. Yes, 3 difficulty curves or Rank ranges. Rank 1-5, 6-10, 11-15.

Even [niripas] was pleased with this idea. I’m not sure if he’s still singing the same tune. Probably not.

There was even a survey to post your own ideas about this issue. But nothing good happened.

We still got the same old crap. One of my friends that came online today just to see what changed in this game after almost a year first asked me this question.

The only solution I can think of is simple. Lack of sufficient player base. There is no other justification for this. In any case, they should get rid of those passive modifiers/buffs, regardless.

Rank 12 ship should not be stronger than Rank 15 and Rank 11 Destroyer should not be stronger and/or more resilient than Rank 14.

33

2 hours ago, GatoGrande said:

 

Good for you.

We all know that you are spacial. ![:006:](<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/006.png “:006:”)

What so special about liking to actually play the game instead of sitting in a queue for an illusion of more balanced games? The example people like to throw around of joining lost/won battle, of course, are valid, but they take 2 minutes of your time at most, and then you are back in the queue and right into the next game. With no hot joins you get to wait for a long time, and there is no guarantee that the match you waited for so long will be great and epic, there is enough influence from human factor that even most arbitrarily balanced game will end up in 40-0 spawn camp team battle, but with no hot join you waited 5+ minutes for that game and will wait for another 5+ after it is done. 

 

1 hour ago, ComWittman said:

lol this is really outrageous, mildly  speaking !

The ranks were obviously implemented to show/state progression and naturally higher rank ships should have been from all aspects better. Climb ranks, progression - no matter what, here we are just going backwards or should I say back and forth but 1 step ahead 10 steps backwards.

What you are saying is just a poor excuse to justify this  chaotic situation. A somewhat glorification to the “new order” hoping people will adopt that view and “enjoy” it… I do remember you pointing out to me I should totally ignore a certain individual’s posts. Somehow I have the feeling I should be ignoring yours.

 

 

6

“this chaotic situation” is the best thing that happened to higher tiers in a long time. 

 

1 hour ago, Koromac said:

There was such a suggestion that was made by me and a few others. Yes, 3 difficulty curves or Rank ranges. Rank 1-5, 6-10, 11-15.

Even [niripas] was pleased with this idea. I’m not sure if he’s still singing the same tune. Probably not.

There was even a survey to post your own ideas about this issue. But nothing good happened.

We still got the same old crap. One of my friends that came online today just to see what changed in this game after almost a year first asked me this question.

The only solution I can think of is simple. Lack of sufficient player base. There is no other justification for this. In any case, they should get rid of those passive modifiers/buffs, regardless.

Rank 12 ship should not be stronger than Rank 15 and Rank 11 Destroyer should not be stronger and/or more resilient than Rank 14.

No, that is not how it happened, 1st Developers introduced the system, but due to endless complains from people unable to cope with the fact that just because they reached a certain rank they are not entitled to have strongest ships vs everyone else in the same games. Only after that system was removed, people started suggesting it to come back, after realizing that it is actually a good thing.

34

Join in progress was a game changer around here it was awesome for shortening wait times and it is only an issue in spoiling beacon matches. I can live with that because lets face it those matches are often one-sided anyway. Perhaps a time cap say 10 seconds into the match would help things? I didn’t mind the days of 5vs5 in PvP. If we put a cap on it we may end up with more 6vs6, but we wouldn’t always start with 2 and end up with 12 by the last beacon.

 

I reject the idea that everyone is entitled to the same game play by buffing lower rank ships to even the playing field. Work deserves reward. If you haven’t earned it you don’t deserve to play in the high tiers plain and simple. We all started out with r1s why should others be given what most here earned (or purchased by DLC)? The concept of giving people something they have not earned so they can be competitive and successful in life has been disproved in a dozen countries over the last 80 years. It’s not maintainable.

 

So if we remove the Buffs how can we improve things? 2 Divisions? 3? We need to get the steroid infused 150 pound drugged up players out of the same games as the pro 250s…who worked for it and earned it. 

35

1 hour ago, Seraphym1 said:

Join in progress was a game changer around here it was awesome for shortening wait times and it is only an issue in spoiling beacon matches. I can live with that because lets face it those matches are often one-sided anyway. Perhaps a time cap say 10 seconds into the match would help things? I didn’t mind the days of 5vs5 in PvP. If we put a cap on it we may end up with more 6vs6, but we wouldn’t always start with 2 and end up with 12 by the last beacon.

 

I reject the idea that everyone is entitled to the same game play by buffing lower rank ships to even the playing field. Work deserves reward. If you haven’t earned it you don’t deserve to play in the high tiers plain and simple. We all started out with r1s why should others be given what most here earned (or purchased by DLC)? The concept of giving people something they have not earned so they can be competitive and successful in life has been disproved in a dozen countries over the last 80 years. It’s not maintainable.

 

So if we remove the Buffs how can we improve things? 2 Divisions? 3? We need to get the steroid infused 150 pound drugged up players out of the same games as the pro 250s…who worked for it and earned it. 

 

Spot on.

Èxactly what I think about all of this.

 

And this

 

1 hour ago, Seraphym1 said:

 We need to get the steroid infused 150 pound drugged up players out of the same games as the pro 250s…who worked for it and earned it. 

 

This is epic explanation.

 

But this will be hard to understand for most Russian and American players.

Why? : well both countrys are known to have progràms that implement doping in sports. So lets do everything that we can  to win. It does not metter if it is legal or not or if it reflex sportsmenship or not. Winning is everything.

36

Uhhh… how does rank bonus equate to doping? Lmao

37

7 hours ago, GatoGrande said:

But this will be hard to understand for most Russian and American players.

Why? : well both countrys are known to have progràms that implement doping in sports. So lets do everything that we can  to win. It does not metter if it is legal or not or if it reflex sportsmenship or not. Winning is everything.

What a BS. Only true idiots talk about the things far away from their own sphere of influence. It would be too much to think about your immidiate societary & political problems.

If you would have at least called them imperialists, then we would have at least some fun.

8 hours ago, Seraphym1 said:

We need to get the steroid infused 150 pound drugged up players out of the same games as the pro 250s…who worked for it and earned it. 

Who worked for it. I didnt spend 4 years in this game to spend most of my evening in my queue, fighting the same cookiecutter minmax imbeciles, who consider themselves skillfull. Pathetic!

 

38

On 17.2.2018 at 10:40 AM, GatoGrande said:

Again you are wrong.

I can prove this one easy.

Just this - We had more players then.

So why do we have less and less players if this is better?

erm, we had more players and they left before that system, so we had even less players for a while than now.

hotjoin actually revitalized the game, and that came a bit before this change.

are you really in the position to tell if i am wrong or not?

 

On 17.2.2018 at 10:40 AM, GatoGrande said:

False, it is important to make game better for new players and progression is part of that.

there is nothing false about my statement in that regard. that just mixes two unrelated issues

progression should happen by itself. having ships constantly beat your ship is the wrong motivation to get into another.

such a player will synergize all ships and leave.

 

On 17.2.2018 at 10:40 AM, GatoGrande said:

All this debate and then you say that you agree with me.

i do not agree with you, that the buffs should be simply removed, no.

i do also not agree, that a higher ranked ship should be naturally stronger than a lower ranked one for pvp. for all i care this system can be used in pve. and it is.

(note, this is about ships in a certain weight class. i am not against having a couple of weight classes overall, therefore the buffs not increasing 5 ranks lower than the current max rank per game is totally okay)

 

i agree that there might be a better solution to solving the issue of making all ships competitive against each other, or that the buffs should not clearly favor the lower rank instead either, but rather give the player choices he can build his gameplay upon.

atm. our system currently is not that bad in this regard, and without a total rework i do not see how it can be done better; but i hope it could be visualized better. because i like transparency.

 

On 17.2.2018 at 10:40 AM, GatoGrande said:

Of course competitive players know how to win, what is objective of game and we will always look to have most possible OP combos that you can have.

everybody likes to win, thats not about being competitive.

actually i think you can rather learn to be competitive by learning to lose, than to win.

 

a competitive player likes even games, sportsmanship and fairness. he will even adjust his play to make the game interesting, e.g. by using niche units or focusing on a specific task for the team; he will see skill as something you have to exercise and enjoys games where everybody plays at full potential. he will see balance as something that creates choices for both sides to outplay each other, and wants to improve by playing first and foremost against people in his strength, with occasionally test himself against the best. he will be open to teach others about his playstyle in the hopes others adopt it for a more challenging gameplay.

 

a coward likes only to win, have the stakes in his favour, and likes to give no quarter, even if his enemy is too easy to kill, dislikes engaging for the team because it will hurt his stats, and seeks confirmation for his self esteem in showing the world that he is the true hero. he likes if the balance accredits his grinded investment by showing off how special he is, and enjoys if he can simply beat other players, even if it is just through methods unavailable to them, and therefore he likes if things are locked away, and rejoices if only he discovers some abusive move, which he keeps a secret.

 

… and yes, we are all a bit of both all the time, but its about what we want to be …

 

On 17.2.2018 at 10:40 AM, GatoGrande said:

Well sadlly we don’t have this here.

but rank bonuses provide an atmosphere, where ships are more equally usable.

 

On 17.2.2018 at 11:18 AM, _terrorblade said:

We’re losing players because of this how?

i do think that too low entry points for games arent helping, while hotjoin in general is of course cool, starting in a 2v2 is a bit pointless, just to get a huge wave of players coming in at a stage, nobody could ever turn the tides.

even if sometimes it still works out ![;)](<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/002.png “;)”)

39

Fellow mate, ladies and gentlemen, please take into account, that a major update in regard to progression, PvP, PvE is coming -I guess- around 4 weeks from now after the fleet upgrade finishes.

And look, please, what the devs did: all the 1.5.x patches were mostly more than just ok! At the moment, Neos are abundant in r8 battles, Berrys are fine in r11, and Electrum is accessible in r14. Monos are easy to get, r8 destroyers are easy to build. Maybe random number generator is a pain in the a*%$ - and credits are a bit low in PvP – but everything is ok. Now the queue or MatchMaker: some say this way, others say other way. Seems that devs could not make us all happy, irregardless of what they would do. I suggest to have switches of choice in game-menu _:  favor wait time for hot join etc. So nobody can any longer blame the devs for the choices they made.

 

On 16.2.2018 at 4:45 PM, Seraphym1 said:

… We don’t want the weak feeling good about there weakness, We want them to be motivated to run and hit the gym…or learn to box.  Bring back the Tiers! Please.

This is game entertainment, you want paying members to be punished by non-paying grinding heros? makes  no sense, somebody has to pay the bills! So it needs incentives to get real money from pleased players and make them paying players in the future…

 

On 16.2.2018 at 6:46 PM, g4borg said:

… it’s not about everybody being a winner, it is about fairness of units.

how was it fun during the time of tiers to grind through rank 7, 10, etc.?

what sense does it make, if you have units in a game that are weaker and just gathering dust? …

Yes - level up synergizing the ships makes sense to some degree, only - in the end it must be fun. What if I hated to fly Interceptors, why should I grind them up until r15,r17, r25? A ship tree with many ranks will not scale endlessly. It will have a golden point, sweet spot of optimum. I fell 15 is a bit to much, not to speak of 17. What would we gain from, say 22 or 33 ranks??

 

On 17.2.2018 at 4:59 PM, Seraphym1 said:

… Without the bonuses the tier jumpers will be shredded like they always have been. “bought the ship but not the skill” is after all still an available taunt.

…

Somebody come up with something for the devs, They will listen if we can give them something solid.

We had the thread "Making Balance together, but no feedback. Some say so other the opposite, how would that help? Hot jump is not optimal but the best thing in a while for the PvP – and players still complain… If one analyses the problems, some will still complain even if a very good - or the best possible solution would be implemented…

 

On 17.2.2018 at 9:12 PM, GatoGrande said:

 

Good for you.

We all know that you are spacial. ![:006:](<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/006.png “:006:”)

No Gato, it is not just Kosty, me too and _terrorblade and g4borg also say hot jump is not so bad!

 

On 17.2.2018 at 9:45 PM, ComWittman said:

… The ranks were obviously implemented to show/state progression and naturally higher rank ships should have been from all aspects better. Climb ranks, progression - …

In the end it must also sell and keep players interested - there are many conflicting variables to take into account, it is not so easy to give a optimal solution, so let us not only beat the devs. I still like this game more or less ok - and I like to have battles with all of you m8s …

 

On 17.2.2018 at 10:06 PM, Koromac said:

There was such a suggestion that was made by me and a few others. Yes, 3 difficulty curves or Rank ranges. Rank 1-5, 6-10, 11-15.

Even [niripas] was pleased with this idea. I’m not sure if he’s still singing the same tune. Probably not.

…

Lack of sufficient player base. There is no other justification for this. In any case, they should get rid of those passive modifiers/buffs, regardless.

Rank 12 ship should not be stronger than Rank 15 and Rank 11 Destroyer should not be stronger and/or more resilient than Rank 14.

Stronger that is relative, some fly r15 others r11 - what’s the big thing. With the hot joins, old stats are not that important any more… I find that ok! And: no remove of passive modules (modifiers)!

 

9 hours ago, g4borg said:

…

hotjoin actually revitalized the game, and that came a bit before this change.

…

progression should happen by itself. having ships constantly beat your ship is the wrong motivation to get into another.

such a player will synergize all ships and leave.

 

i do not agree with you, that the buffs should be simply removed, no.

i do also not agree, that a higher ranked ship should be naturally stronger than a lower ranked one for pvp.

…

i agree that there might be a better solution to solving the issue of making all ships competitive against each other, or that the buffs should not clearly favor the lower rank instead either, but rather give the player choices he can build his gameplay upon.

atm. our system currently is not that bad in this regard, and without a total rework i do not see how it can be done better; but i hope it could be visualized better. because i like transparency.

 

everybody likes to win, thats not about being competitive.

actually i think you can rather learn to be competitive by learning to lose, than to win.

 

a competitive player likes even games, sportsmanship and fairness. he will even adjust his play to make the game interesting, e.g. by using niche units or focusing on a specific task for the team; he will see skill as something you have to exercise and enjoys games where everybody plays at full potential. he will see balance as something that creates choices for both sides to outplay each other, and wants to improve by playing first and foremost against people in his strength, with occasionally test himself against the best. he will be open to teach others about his playstyle in the hopes others adopt it for a more challenging gameplay.

 

a coward likes only to win, have the stakes in his favour, and likes to give no quarter, even if his enemy is too easy to kill, dislikes engaging for the team because it will hurt his stats, and seeks confirmation for his self esteem in showing the world that he is the true hero. he likes if the balance accredits his grinded investment by showing off how special he is, and enjoys if he can simply beat other players, even if it is just through methods unavailable to them, and therefore he likes if things are locked away, and rejoices if only he discovers some abusive move, which he keeps a secret.

 

… and yes, we are all a bit of both all the time, but its about what we want to be …

 

but rank bonuses provide an atmosphere, where ships are more equally usable.

 

i do think that too low entry points for games arent helping, while hotjoin in general is of course cool, starting in a 2v2 is a bit pointless, just to get a huge wave of players coming in at a stage, nobody could ever turn the tides.

even if sometimes it still works out ![;)](<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/002.png “;)”)

… + 100% - ehem 99% - do not create Niri falsely into a stats-addict, he’s not, be fair to him pls. He’s giving a lot! And even guys like Eugeneius have a hard time these days, I guess he don’t like my Waz’got a lot ![;)](<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/002.png “;)”) (And i am not that good a player)

40

On 19.2.2018 at 1:27 AM, avarshina said:

  • 100% - ehem 99% - do not create Niri falsely into a stats-addict, he’s not, be fair to him pls. He’s giving a lot!

what?

careful, what you interprete here, dont put judgements into my mouth!

do not create me either!

 

On 18.2.2018 at 3:42 PM, g4borg said:

… and yes, we are all a bit of both all the time , but its about what we want to be …

i was clearly not talking about a specific person but trying to write about inner motivations, archetypes, like the little angel and devil on your shoulder.

nobody knows our inner motivations

sometimes, without reflection, not even oneself.

 

is it what you think i was talking about? i was actually more talking about myself in the good and bad.

i actually pm someone if i have a direct problem, or write it directly at him. dont need to hide him between words. of course sometimes a bit passive aggressive.

 

also i can’t create anything of anybody. that’s not my game.