Developer Blog entry from Septemver, 9th. Updated Game Development Plan.

Mercenary Center Developer Blog
#1

d922586e7de756b6e3e528d3f7bb.jpg

Soldiers!

We are pleased to announce that the game’s site now hosts an updated project roadmap, which describes the main points that are being developed or are planned for the not-so-far future! You can also see the features that have already been implemented. It’s been sixth months since the launch of the open beta on Steam, during which we have introduced the players of Star Conflict to a lot of interesting and important changes - let’s recap what we’ve achieved!

  • We have developed and introduced a system of ship roles, designed to help players understand the differences between ships and their tasks on the battlefield - this innovation helped make the game more interesting and logical.
  • Module system has also been extensively developed and updated - our ships have become more unique and different from their counterparts in different sides of the conflict.
  • A system of implants for pilots has been added, so that everyone could find the optimal parameters corresponding to their combat style!
  • New types of gameplays were created for players interested in PvE combat, and PvP battles as well! Moreover, the sector conquest has been implemented, which is appreciated by many players from corporations.
  • There’s also the much-anticipated custom battle system - with its introduction our pilots now have the ability to set the conditions and parameters of the battles in which they want to participate!
  • Of course, for every multiplayer game it is important to have the options to change and customize the player’s appearance, and more recently our players were able to try this feature out too, pilots can now change the colours of their ships and apply unique stickers!
  • Precursor space was invaded by pirates, and after them, the ships of the new technological level - this has pleased many of our players who want to develop further and has given them the opportunity to try out new and exciting ships!
    So as you can see, during this time the game has grown and has become even more interesting! In addition to the items mentioned, serious work was done to refine and improve various aspects of the game. Interface was further improved, synergy system was revamped, statistics display was updated too, and much-much more! Moreover, with each update, our game is nearing completion, and version 1.0 is almost here! In future updates our players will be able to see not less important and interesting improvements - for example, now we are actively preparing new game modes!
     
    It’s also worth mentioning that we want to minimize massive mechanics shakeups after the game’s release and concentrate on polishing and expanding the game. This is why the beta has seen such sweeping changes — we want to avoid that in the future and work really hard on new content!

We are thankful for all the support, interest and patience our players are consistently showing. This is what helps us make Star Conflict better! Follow this link to see the updated development roadmap and make sure to leave a comment as well.

#2

At the moment we do not plan to spend more in the following areas:

  • Limiting the choice of ships for battle with just one race.

 

Planting a big fat Kiss on my Monitor ! 

#3

Matchmaking refinement;

To ensure that our players feel most comfortable during space battles, they must fight with evenly matched opponents. In the future, we plan to improve our system of opponent selection.

Please do. As quick as possible. I’m tired of seeing half the enemy team being comprised of R11/12 ships as I’m playing R7/9 ships.

#4

So when do you fix the lag? Only feature that really interests me…

Thanks for cleaning up the plan though, some features I hadn’t been sure if you considered them implemented or not but they are still on it now so that’s interesting.

#5

Nothing about squad size hmmm…

#6

I don’t like hating on the devs, but seriously…half the stuff they implemented is badly implemeted and they have so far shown no interest in fixing it at all beyond a slight alteration!

 

Let me list it for you:

  • Starter module kits.

  • No one wanted this! And it increased ship prices by a lot which was not necessary. I would really like to see the system go away again.

 

  • The introduction of Sector Conquest. Players will be able to watch the balance of power in the sectors they are fighting for;

  • So far it holds no use at all, and you get placed on any side of the conflict no matter who you fight for(Unless this got fixed without me knowing)

 

  • Reworked synergy;

Yeah…It’s not great, but it is acceptable, though I wouldn’t mind if you only needed lvl 8 to get to the next ship maximum, since lvl 10 is a very long grind.

 

I still think the contracts need a loyalty buff(20-25% increase)

 

The looting system did NOT make it better, it only made it worse. And you did it only to get more GS income…

 

Ship tree is a mess, and ship boosts make no sense in a lot of cases. It really needs dev time to fix the weird connections and placements.(Missing roles in ranks etc. and a frigate with a 15% crit boost for example)

 

And the new slot layouts don’t make a lot of sense in a lot of situations. It needs fixing as well.

 

 

I do not want to come over as a  hater as I love what this game’s core is, and where it can be headed. But a lot needs fixing.

#7

THANK YOU

THANK YOU

THANK YOU

#8

]At the moment we are working on a brand-new, long-awaited mode, where you can explore the vastness of space, attack convoys and hunt down pirates — the choice is yours! We are passionate about working on this exciting part of the game and we want to ensure that our pilots are also able to test it as soon as possible!

 

Sounds like some sort of open-world style area/mode or at least some sort of instances “mass pve” zone. Sounds interesting and I look forward to more information.

 

Matchmaking refinement;

To ensure that our players feel most comfortable during space battles, they must fight with evenly matched opponents. In the future, we plan to improve our system of opponent selection.

I encourage and plead that this is brought forward and given attention sooner rather than later. The upper tiers are not without their problems at the present.

 

At the moment we do not plan to spend more efforts in the following areas:

Limiting the choice of ships for battle with just one race.

This is a really good decision, and players should not underestimate what it takes for a development team to make a 180 degrees turn on something like this. At this point, its implementation would simply have been too harsh to those who spend hundreds of hours in working through existing trees and developed ‘favourite’ ships across all trees.

In addition, it’s nicer if players have more free choice of ships / play styles and are still able to play with their friends. So this has a huge thumbs up from me.

 

Our goal is making the development process as open as possible and not forcing our players to speculate about what the future holds for the project.

I’m going to pin-point you here in a pretty unpleasant way and put you ‘on the spot’ - but please enlighten us as to what is planned surrounding squad sizes. Many players, myself included, are wondering about this - and the answer will determine whether or not this game has a place in our future gaming/leisure time.

Right now, we are all speculating and in some cases, pretty nervous about the silence on the subject since its rather unpopular introduction.

 

#9

Many players, myself included, are wondering about this - and the answer will determine whether or not this game has a place in our future gaming/leisure time.

Right now, we are all speculating and in some cases, pretty nervous about the silence on the subject since its rather unpopular introduction.

At the moment we cannot give you a definitive answer on the matter, but we do remember your concern and will try get back at you with this a little bit later.

#10

At the moment we cannot give you a definitive answer on the matter, but we do remember your concern and will try get back at you with this a little bit later.

 

The fact that this is still being looked at and has not yet been made permanent, is for now a decent enough answer.

 

Thank you.

#11

"Ship system development:

Enhanced ship roles;
We plan to further develop ship roles in the game. Thanks to roles, players will be able to quickly understand the desired roles of their ship on the battlefield. According to our idea, each task is associated with a set of unique role-playing modules, weapons, starting set of modules available for the ship, as well as ship modifications and slots"

 

– Great, just dont add any more restrictions to modules.  Things are feeling a little cookie-cutterish now.  Your system on the day of the steam launch offered the most flexibility.

.

.

"Improved ship tree.
Ship trees will also be developed and refined, so that pilots could easily determine the direction of development they would like to move along in the future."

 

– This isnt necessary, this would not be a good use of development time.

.

.

"New HUD.  Combat interface is a major object of attention of the development team. We are carefully considering the responses and suggestions of players. We are confident that the planned improvements to the combat interface will lease most players."

 

– Again, this isnt necessary.  The existing HUD is simple and to the point.  Since this is an area where your game is already strong, why waste resources?

.

.

"Hangars for corporations;
We encourage the development of corporations in the game and their desire for individual and unique style. Therefore, we plan to introduce unique corporate hangars where it will be possible to choose your own design options. The first step in this direction was the introduction of hangars for the different sides of conflict!"

 

– Fluff, but good fluff.  I can support this.

.

.

"Ability to configure the appearance of the corporation members’ ships;
In addition to the hangar for corporations, we want players to have the opportunity to show their belonging to the corporation and its individual style through the appearance of the ship!"

 

– Very good fluff.  I can support this!

.

.

"Corporation tournaments;
At the moment, our corporations are busy raising ratings and accumulating Iridium. We plan to give the members of corporations other ways of entertainment. One of these activities will be the regular tournaments in various disciplines."

 

– Excellent!

 

"Introduction of Dreadnoughts.
Dreadnoughts were one of the very first of our promises. And we plan to implement it in the near future. Corporations will be able to not only build their own dreadnoughts, but also take it into battle as part of a special game mode."

 

– This might be good.  We’ll see.

.

.

"Revision of contracts;
Contract system has undergone major changes. Not only do the contracts provide the way of gaining loyalty, but they also tell the player about the game world. This has been achieved by the introduction of a logical chain of related contracts, the system liked by both players and us, that will be developed further in the future. In addition, we plan to increase the importance of choosing the player’s race."

 

– This could be very good or very bad.  If you accept/admit/acknowledge that loyalty is WAY to slow and promise not to slow it down further with any changes then this might be okay.  But honestly if Loyalty gets any slower I’ll probably quit no matter how good everything else is.  I’m already flying with all my T4s sporting MK II gear.  I will soon have T5s, they will be sporting all MK II gear.  It is so insanely hopeless to level loyalty now (if you missed out on leveling it before the change).  So the bottom line is if the result is faster loyalty gain that is good.  If loyalty gain stays the same, that is barely tolerable.  But if you slow it down further, expect to see a lot less pilots.

.

.

"New PvE scenarios"

 

– More content, good use of resources.  Sure, why not

.

.

"Matchmaking refinement"

 

– Haha.  I will believe this when I see it.  The only matchmaking that was good was when the game launched on steam and people saw only their own tier.  If you want to get it right, revert it to that.  We dont need matchmaking based on “rank” it needs to be based on tier.  Tier 2 ships should see tier 2 ships.  Tier 3 should see tier 3.  Thats it.  When you get matched up vs +1 tier your outgunned, and its no longer fair.  I’ve occasionally seen T3 matched against T5 too and thats just plain silly.

.

.

"Expanded looting system"

 

– Messing with loot?  Not sure I like this.  Your loot system is fine the way it is, other than the odds.  I have the same fear here as I do with the loyalty system.  When MMO devs change anything that has to do with things a player earns in game (currency, factions, experience, etc…) it usually ends up BAD for the player.  I’ve been burned so much in the past, I’ve learned to not look forward to changes like this.  If at the end of your change I make the same (or more) credits and gear I am happy.  If you implement a system that gives me a smaller paycheck in the end, then I am not happy.   Tier 5 ships are VERY VERY expensive, we do not need an income nerf.  Tread carefully.

#12

 

I’m going to pin-point you here in a pretty unpleasant way and put you ‘on the spot’ - but please enlighten us as to what is planned surrounding squad sizes. Many players, myself included, are wondering about this - and the answer will determine whether or not this game has a place in our future gaming/leisure time.

Right now, we are all speculating and in some cases, pretty nervous about the silence on the subject since its rather unpopular introduction.

 

 

Not everyone agrees.  In random pvp battles, I for one am very happy with the squad size went down to three.  Now instead of the S.C.D.S. making up 33% of a match, it only makes up 25% of a match.  Compare that to the other big game.  One squad there can only make up 20% of a match (3 out of 15 players).  I do not believe people deserve an auto-win just because they are grouped and on teamspeak.

#13

I would also like to have some info about the squad size. I’m still assuming that 4 men squads are going to come back at some point. The reduced size didn’t fix anything in my opinon.

#14

xilr, I don’t understand your reasoning… 

So you think a little bit of dev time on hud(Which it could use, but really only some minor tweaks) and ship tree(It would take like 2-3 days of work at most to get a good ship tree) is wasted. Yet you want devs to use their time for fluff? WTH man!

#15

Reasoning is simple.  Tech Trees and HUD both work just fine.  Historically, have Star Conflict changes been positive or negative in 2013?  How much tinkering you want them doing?

#16

Just a feedback on the squad sizes.

 

Reduced squad size made the game less fun for me and I am playing less since the reduction, and so do some of my friends. Nobody I know is happy with the change. 

 

If I want to solo a multi player game, I will play a single player game instead.

 

This has been a step in the wrong direction. If 4 man squads were too strong, than people should adapt and squad up as well, and start working together. If their asses are getting kicked, than they should get better. You are punishing good players and promoting laziness this way. This is a multi player team based game, with ship roles and team objectives.  Solo and selfish play should be punished, not promoted.

 

 

Other than that, I really like the updated development plan. Really looking forward to the new game modes and corporation improvements. And please fix the nonsense module restriction (missing capacitor upgrades on most ships, making them useless due to energy shortages is the biggest problem - some ships are completely unplayable because of this).

#17

This has been a step in the wrong direction. If 4 man squads were too strong, than people should adapt and squad up as well, and start working together. This is a multi player team based game, with ship roles and team objectives.  Solo and selfish play should be punished, not promoted.

 

Punishing players leads to them leaving.  I remember back when EQ2 and WoW launched.  Pretty much at the same time.  All the gaming news magazines and articles said it was a toss up, both were very good games (at launch) and both had strong points over the other.

 

History shows WoW becoming a worldwide mega-MMO.  EQ2 faded away to nothing.

 

Most people doing post-mortem analysis cited EQ2’s forced grouping as being a major factor in the games failure.  A lot of the elites from EQ said the same thing “You should have to group for things, its an MMO!”.  Bottom line is however, people do not like being FORCED to group up.  And people certainly do not like being told that if they solo, they should expect to fail and be sub-par compared to those who do not solo.

 

So if Star Conflict values success in business, they will not use solo-players as cannon fodder for S.C.D.S.

#18

How can you possibly expect to compete as a solo player with equal success as a teamed up group with voice-comms in a game which is based around tactical team-play?

 

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

I’m not sure that solo players should be punished, but equally, neither should squads. And squads got punished for being ‘too effective’. I mean what? A team is too effective in a team-based game? They’re meant to be. Just ensure the match maker throws teams on both sides. And yeah, some teams will be stronger than others and as a solo player you’ll be rolling the dice as you don’t know what side you’ll end up at. But that’s incredibly normal in a team game. It’s not like you can’t join a team yourself if you want more control over your destiny.

 

In essence, this issue should be dealt with through good match making which ensures a squad faces another squad as often as possible and then mixes the solo players in on both sides. It shouldn’t be solved through a reduction of the squads or team-play.

 

All this change has done is made some players very lonely, break up squads and corporation organisation of those corps who were well-organised before that patch, and create issues for corporations who want to create joint squads on equal grounds. And yeah, some of us like doing that.

#19

Double post. Delete.

#20

Punishing players leads to them leaving.  I remember back when EQ2 and WoW launched.  Pretty much at the same time.  All the gaming news magazines and articles said it was a toss up, both were very good games (at launch) and both had strong points over the other.

 

History shows WoW becoming a worldwide mega-MMO.  EQ2 faded away to nothing.

 

Most people doing post-mortem analysis cited EQ2’s forced grouping as being a major factor in the games failure.  A lot of the elites from EQ said the same thing “You should have to group for things, its an MMO!”.  Bottom line is however, people do not like being FORCED to group up.  And people certainly do not like being told that if they solo, they should expect to fail and be sub-par compared to those who do not solo.

 

So if Star Conflict values success in business, they will not use solo-players as cannon fodder for S.C.D.S.

 

I have to agree you are right on the subject. I didn’t think of it that way. But it’s not like there are hardcore corporation groups running around in T1 and T2.

 

Idea: make 4 man squads for T4+ only? 

 

This is a really hard thing to balance, but it still feels like good player groups have been punished for being “too good”. Of course, a lot of new players start solo and start grouping (if at all) later.