[NB] Pay2Win crew system: bugged or intentional?

Bug Report Section Leveling, balance and market
#1

Edit: this is not a bug, the crew system is indeed Pay2Win Pay4Advantage. 

 

just checked out the crew system from the new update, everyone starts out with one crew and all the others cost a whopping 2,000 gold each.

the “alpha” crew, the free crew, has four buttons on the icon that say:

 

assign/switch crew for combat slot #x

 

At first, I thought that this meant that each individual crew can have its own set if implants, one for each slot. so there would be no need to but multiple crews, unless I wanted one for seccon, 1 for T3 pvp, etc. 

 

When I click on the combat slot 4 button and change the implants, it changes the implants for EVERY slot. I really hope this is a bug.

 

If this is intentional, then I have to buy the 3 other crews in order to optimize the implants for all 4 of my combat slots. They are basically asking for 6k GS in order to optimize your ship implantations. If this is the case, than this is an undeniable, inexcusable, explicitly Pay2Win, and gaijin/stargem is going to lose a large amount of players, and deal irreparable damage to our beloved space shooter. 

 

If this isn’t a bug, please, lie to us, pretend it was a bug, and FIX IT. Give us 4 unique implantations per slot, PER CREW. this game will not grow with such a Pay2Win system in place.

#2

Not a bug. As the patch said, you have to buy the crews, you start with one and you can buy 3 additional crews, and then assign them to your combat slots.

 

Title edited.

#3

I thought they wanted to avoid Pay2Win but this is just that… people who pay for the crew are now going to have a significant advantage in sector conquest… when we play teams like SRS and ESB, the games are already extremely close. If they paid to have better crews for each of their ships, that will make a decisive difference in several of the close games. I am appalled that gaijin/stargem would make such a blatant move towards pay2win. Before this patch, there was no pay2win, only pay2grindless. Now, people who pay for their crews, will have much more flexibility in their builds, and will have a TANGIBLE advantage if they plan on using more than 1 ship, something that is unavoidable in sector conquest.

 

Also, in tournament situations, I dont want to be excluded from a tournament team because I dont have the crew advantage. I know that wont be a problem at NASA, but this will definitely stir up some drama and elitism in some of the other competitive corps who will be encouraged to favour those who have paid for the crew advantage.

#4

90% of the implants are very general and will stay in all your ships. I bought all the crews and now I don’t know what the hell to do with them. Except 1 or 2 implants my builds didn’t change at all…

 

But I would avoid making Crews cost GS anyway…

#5

I agree it isnt a huge advantage. it is a small advantage that cannot be obtained without spending GS. I’ve already spent far too much on this game, if the developers increase the frequency of gold-awarding tournaments to compensate for all the cost increases of 1.0.1, I will be perfectly fine with the changes. tournament planners, get to work (please).

#6

Let’s take the R5 implant for instance: the extra 30% rotation from Velox (E5 implant) is comparable to innate rotation bonuses or verniers. The advantage is definitely there in this case, and it’s not a small one. For a brawling fighter, it determines whether you’re able to keep up with your enemy at all.

#7

What is wrong with this?  Nothing.  The game developers have every right to charge for these things.

#8

What is wrong with this?  Nothing.  The game developers have every right to charge for these things.

With this logic we will be charged GS to leave hangar soon  :015j:  This change changes nothing. Just increase skill gap between corps that want compete for more valuable sectors.

#9

What is wrong with this?  Nothing.  The game developers have every right to charge for these things.

they most certainly do have the right, but there will be consequences. for the first time in a while, someone can say that star conflict has a Pay4Advantage element and be correct.

#10

I agree it isnt a huge advantage. it is a small advantage that cannot be obtained without spending GS. I’ve already spent far too much on this game, if the developers increase the frequency of gold-awarding tournaments to compensate for all the cost increases of 1.0.1, I will be perfectly fine with the changes. tournament planners, get to work (please).

it gives you as much advantage as mk5 module over mk4, so big W/E from me, even though it can be interpreted as “p2w” and argued about the fact, it is hardly makes any sensible difference

#11

they most certainly do have the right, but there will be consequences. for the first time in a while, someone can say that star conflict has a Pay4Advantage element and be correct.

 

So premium ships are not Pay4Advantage?  These ships are (slightly) better.

 

The new implant mechanics are  also  (slightly) better.  Consider it “Premicrews” :stuck_out_tongue:

#12

it gives you as much advantage as mk5 module over mk4, so big W/E from me, even though it can be interpreted as “p2w” and argued about the fact, it is hardly makes any sensible difference

So premium ships are not Pay4Advantage?  These ships are (slightly) better.

 

The new implant mechanics are  also  (slightly) better.  Consider it “Premicrews” :stuck_out_tongue:

 

What you both seem to be missing is that this is the first time a feature that directly impacts gameplay has been hard-locked behind a pay wall.

 

Most Mk5 modules still require the player to go out and hunt for their blueprint. And the crafting components can be farmed as well as bought.

 

Premium ships are not better. They are variations of the base model. The only true advantage they possess is that they do not need to be repaired and start with full synergy (thus owing to the rumor that they are ‘better’ because their stats are displayed at full synergy).

 

We’ve seen the difference the lack of a few implants can make between Tier 4 ships and Tier 5 ships. Now imagine the difference between corporations in Sector Conquest or Sponsored Tournaments that have specialized implant setups for each ship vs. those that have only one generic setup for all 4 of their ships. You can’t tell me that the difference will be hardly noticable…

#13

Well, most players are assigned to a single role in a tournament, so having different crews is not an advantage.

You are doing a mountain of this.

#14

Anyway, you can’t say that it’s not paying to have a small advantage.  It’s the first thing in SC that need to be paid to give a boost to the player. 

#15

Well, most players are assigned to a single role in a tournament, so having different crews is not an advantage.

You are doing a mountain of this.

 

In regular PvP, the difference is there.

#16

Can you stop deleting my posts? If you do that to unhappy players how will devs know that community is unhappy… If they even

#17

You are doing a mountain of this.

 

Am I? A mighty avalanche starts with just a few small stones.

 

‘Small’ things add up. A player with a lineup of Synergy Level 1, Rank 13, T5 ship with nothing but Mk 1 modules is hardly a match for a lineup of Full Synergy, Rank 15, T5 ships with Mk4 and 5 gear. Why? Because what are ‘small’ stat changes between each level add up to a huge stat difference overall. The only difference with this example is the pilot who is at the disadvantage doesn’t need to pay real money to make up the difference. Given enough time, he will bridge the gap.

 

There is no way to bridge the ‘small’ gaps the developers have created with the implant system, other than to “pony up the dough”. If this system is allowed to stay, what other ‘small’, ‘meaningless’ options will be locked behind doors with cash locks? A lot of ‘small’ stats can add up quickly in this game, and this is the first stone in what could become an avalanche…

#18

What you fail to understand is that they haven’t locked the implants with a paywall. All players have the same implants. What you buy is the option to have several presets instead of switching implants every time you want to play a ship or test a build.

The supposed advantage is minimal and very situational.

#19

The supposed advantage is minimal and very situational.

Minimal and situational, but something. 

You can have an implant layout that fit perfectly the ship you are using, and another implant layout that fit your 2nd ship

Meaning that you can have a guard with armadillo, r2 proton wall, stafe speed, r6 Projectile speed, and an interceptor with hull resistance, r2 crit chance, rotation speed, and r6 crit damage.

 

Some implants give a huge buff to a specific build. So there should be a free way.

#20

What you fail to understand is that they haven’t locked the implants with a paywall. All players have the same implants. What you buy is the option to have several presets instead of switching implants every time you want to play a ship or test a build.

The supposed advantage is minimal and very situational.

 

You’re also buying the option to have more specialized implant sets. Right now I have some ships that favour strafe and others that require rotation. Having a second implant setup gives me the option to use Velox on some ships and Cheetah on others. Or I could run any R6 implant for my other ships without hurting a crit build that depends on Ox. R12 implants are pretty situational as well: I could go with damage on an ELRF and shield regeneration for a guard. Essentially, all my ships are more competitive as compared to someone who has to make compromises. And this is locked behind a paywall.

 

And it doesn’t make any sense at all to spend 2k GS to save on some credits for implant testing. I don’t even know why you suggested that.