The last thread commenting on this subject was locked because it turned into a whine/rage fest. I suggest that we use this one as a way to calmly explain how not being able to invite more than one person into a squad is not a proper social tactic for this game.
My friends and I don’t make a lot of money. That doesn’t mean we’re not willing to give a little back to games that give us fun at no cost. I come from a group of gamers. We’ve been together for over seven years now and we play every game together. It’s hard enough splitting the group because we could only have a maximum of four people to a squad. But we figured it was a reasonable size based on the F2P model. We sometimes have an odd-man out but we manage to deal with it.
Now we’re faced with a real dilemma. I’m sure some of us will be willing to put money into this game but the idea of only needing one person with a license to fill a squad is good only on paper. My friends and I live in different time zones and even different countries. We try to see each other as often as we can but after seven years life has nudged it’s way between some of us. Work, school, girl-friends, marriage; Some of us can’t always show up for our “game-time.”
I realize other games have used this very same tactic of reduced party size but I was hoping that Star Conflict had learned from those games. They are NOT good mechanics. They divide friends and keep the community far from each other. I’ve had plenty of games this past week where I’ve invited random people to my squad because they were nice, fun, or good players. If I didn’t have a license I wouldn’t be able to do that anymore. I’d have to choose between making new friends or keeping the ones I have.
That’s just horrible.
For me, this aspect takes away the most important part of the game. Meeting new people who love to go pew pew in space.
I suggest that this should be a priority and should be changed immediately. There is nothing more important than keeping a community thriving and close-knit. I hope everyone understands the implications of this affect, socially and financially.
TL;DR Version: I understand reduction for in-game currency and reputation but there should be no reason to punish social interaction for people who don’t pay. A proper F2P model should give basic social rights to all players and give paying players unique ways to express themselves through skins, stickers, ship models, and the luxury of quicker leveling/money making.
We should be able to max squads regardless of our license.
If this isn’t addressed by the time the game leaves “beta” (which is an odd thing to call it, since beta is traditionally a **short period** of testing before a game is released, maybe 3 months at most) and starts selling items for actual money (oh wait… funny how they’re already making a ton of cash off an unreleased game… yes, beta is unreleased), then this game will die very quickly.
Right now, there are still enough players online, because people who bought steam packs got free license.
I got 30 days, some other people got 180 days (I don’t even know how that works). So, there is enough with license to keep it going and active, and keep 4-man squads running for corps etc.
In another couple months, when this ends… well, I don’t even want to think about it.
It’s already bad enough that dying *twice* in T4 will mean you won’t be able to afford repair cost. Without even paying for ammo.
This will be the nail in the coffin.
Things that you SHOULD sell for cash:
premium versions of Mk3 items. That’s fine.
ships. but, don’t have separate cash ships. Have an option to unlock credit ships for cash OR credits. (the way planetside do guns). This way there is 100% balance for cash/credit ships because they’re the same thing. and you can put it on every ship so you might even earn more.
visual customisation - skins, flags, stickers, fins… engine trail colours? different missile explosion animations? (but keeping missile stats unchanged). also alternate ship models, or things like extra fins etc
progression boosters - xp/rank/credits etc (though make it possible to not bankrupt players immediately by not having license from repair cost)
ship/inventory slots
this should be plenty enough to get people to spend cash. no need to break the core gameplay over it.
Right now, there are still enough players online, because people who bought steam packs got free license.
I got 30 days, some other people got 180 days (I don’t even know how that works). So, there is enough with license to keep it going and active, and keep 4-man squads running for corps etc.
In another couple months, when this ends… well, I don’t even want to think about it.
It’s already bad enough that dying *twice* in T4 will mean you won’t be able to afford repair cost. Without even paying for ammo.
This will be the nail in the coffin.
Things that you SHOULD sell for cash:
premium versions of Mk3 items. That’s fine.
ships. but, don’t have separate cash ships. Have an option to unlock credit ships for cash OR credits. (the way planetside do guns). This way there is 100% balance for cash/credit ships because they’re the same thing. and you can put it on every ship so you might even earn more.
visual customisation - skins, flags, stickers, fins… engine trail colours? different missile explosion animations? (but keeping missile stats unchanged). also alternate ship models, or things like extra fins etc
progression boosters - xp/rank/credits etc (though make it possible to not bankrupt players immediately by not having license from repair cost)
ship/inventory slots
this should be plenty enough to get people to spend cash. no need to break the core gameplay over it.
agreed, +1 for saving me the time to type this rant myself. Also belongs in the Suggestions forum.
If this isn’t addressed by the time the game leaves “beta” (which is an odd thing to call it, since beta is traditionally a **short period** of testing before a game is released, maybe 3 months at most) and starts selling items for actual money (oh wait… funny how they’re already making a ton of cash off an unreleased game… yes, beta is unreleased), then this game will die very quickly.
Right now, there are still enough players online, because people who bought steam packs got free license.
I got 30 days, some other people got 180 days (I don’t even know how that works). So, there is enough with license to keep it going and active, and keep 4-man squads running for corps etc.
In another couple months, when this ends… well, I don’t even want to think about it.
It’s already bad enough that dying *twice* in T4 will mean you won’t be able to afford repair cost. Without even paying for ammo.
This will be the nail in the coffin.
Things that you SHOULD sell for cash:
premium versions of Mk3 items. That’s fine.
ships. but, don’t have separate cash ships. Have an option to unlock credit ships for cash OR credits. (the way planetside do guns). This way there is 100% balance for cash/credit ships because they’re the same thing. and you can put it on every ship so you might even earn more.
visual customisation - skins, flags, stickers, fins… engine trail colours? different missile explosion animations? (but keeping missile stats unchanged). also alternate ship models, or things like extra fins etc
progression boosters - xp/rank/credits etc (though make it possible to not bankrupt players immediately by not having license from repair cost)
ship/inventory slots
this should be plenty enough to get people to spend cash. no need to break the core gameplay over it.
(Lol, can’t write on the outside of the quote-box ô.o)
+1 for OP for explaining the issue with politeness and very reasonable argument which I fully agree with. Social interactions should not be hindered by monetization. If such thing have to be part of the deal, make it so people with licence can create 6 person squads.
As for DryEagle’s post - while I mostly agree with points you made in second part of your post - first sentence annoys me to no end - as it’s same ol’ same ol’ type of rhetoric:
amazing gift of predicting future (“this game will die very quickly”) along with professional knowledge of gaming industry (there is no set period of time for any pre-release phase - how long alpha, beta, internal testing and balancing is going to take is only dictated by developer and/or publisher decision), and master degree in law and economics (who said they can’t offer real money sales in Open Beta - people are paying for products which are not even made yet ).
I mean, dude, no offence, but… it started really nice and reasonable without “I want” attitude - properly voiced concern with polite argumentation. Why not to continue it this way?
If I as developer would read in first sentence that my “game is going to die quickly” I honestly wouldn’t bother to take seriously rest of the post…
If this isn’t addressed by the time the game leaves “beta” (which is an odd thing to call it, since beta is traditionally a **short period** of testing before a game is released, maybe 3 months at most) and starts selling items for actual money (oh wait… funny how they’re already making a ton of cash off an unreleased game… yes, beta is unreleased), then this game will die very quickly.
actually it seems to be common at gaijin games…
just have a look at war thunder, this game is around for a long time now and if you have a look at what else they want to do, i have a feeling they wil stay in beta for ever. while in every beta they already have a full operating shop working.
as well a common thing nowadays, that people get billed in “betas” already.
many people will now say “you dont have to pay, if you dont want to” and they are right to some extend… but only to a small one, since the game economies are already tweaked to the need of premium and sorts if you reach higher tiers.
but since most people doesn`t seem to care, nothing will change. i guess it will become even worse.
back on topic:
WoT in its early release state did as well only support grouping if you had a premium account, but even they have allowed grouping for non-premium users as well after some time.
not allowing to at least make small groups probably hurts a game a lot, so i guess they will keep it, but also limit it unless you use premium.
didnt play any t4 matches so far (t3 atm), but dying some times in t3 will also mean you wont make lots of progress there (money wise). huge problem might also be, that the rep costs of all ships regardless of its sice and survivability is the same, so dying in an interceptor costs you as much as dying in a frigate, which you will be a lot more in an interceptor unless you are very good.
Guys, i bet there will be some kind of WoT’s company battles in the future.
About license allowing you to make 6 players squad - it’s very bad idea. There are some corps in this game, which squads are tearing random apart easily even with 4 player squad. Imagine, what would they do with 6 player squad?
The last thread commenting on this subject was locked because it turned into a whine/rage fest. I suggest that we use this one as a way to calmly explain how not being able to invite more than one person into a squad is not a proper social tactic for this game.
My friends and I don’t make a lot of money. That doesn’t mean we’re not willing to give a little back to games that give us fun at no cost. I come from a group of gamers. We’ve been together for over seven years now and we play every game together. It’s hard enough splitting the group because we could only have a maximum of four people to a squad. But we figured it was a reasonable size based on the F2P model. We sometimes have an odd-man out but we manage to deal with it.
Now we’re faced with a real dilemma. I’m sure some of us will be willing to put money into this game but the idea of only needing one person with a license to fill a squad is good only on paper. My friends and I live in different time zones and even different countries. We try to see each other as often as we can but after seven years life has nudged it’s way between some of us. Work, school, girl-friends, marriage; Some of us can’t always show up for our “game-time.”
I realize other games have used this very same tactic of reduced party size but I was hoping that Star Conflict had learned from those games. They are NOT good mechanics. They divide friends and keep the community far from each other. I’ve had plenty of games this past week where I’ve invited random people to my squad because they were nice, fun, or good players. If I didn’t have a license I wouldn’t be able to do that anymore. I’d have to choose between making new friends or keeping the ones I have.
That’s just horrible.
For me, this aspect takes away the most important part of the game. Meeting new people who love to go pew pew in space.
I suggest that this should be a priority and should be changed immediately. There is nothing more important than keeping a community thriving and close-knit. I hope everyone understands the implications of this affect, socially and financially.
TL;DR Version: I understand reduction for in-game currency and reputation but there should be no reason to punish social interaction for people who don’t pay. A proper F2P model should give basic social rights to all players and give paying players unique ways to express themselves through skins, stickers, ship models, and the luxury of quicker leveling/money making.
We should be able to max squads regardless of our license.
very good post. Glad to see many people are Talking about this issue instead of letting it just happen
Guys, i bet there will be some kind of WoT’s company battles in the future.
About license allowing you to make 6 players squad - it’s very bad idea. There are some corps in this game, which squads are tearing random apart easily even with 4 player squad. Imagine, what would they do with 6 player squad?
One one hand you have some truth in what you say, on the other - that’s what squads are for - group of well communicating people with tactical preparation doing their job and being the core power of the team. You can’t expect group of random people who don’t even care to communicate via in-game chat to be better than a squad - no matter if it’s going to be 4 or 6 or 8 people, really. In such case randoms are often a cannon fodder and act as distraction - whether you like it or not.
It’s like sending military trained highly organised group to fight mob of peasants (sorry for the comparison).
WoT has only 2 man squads for free players, 3 man ones if a premium player is in.
Guess what, the model works, and WoT is extremely successful despite the social limitation.
Don’t see why the devs wouldn’t follow such a good example, one that makes so much money.
because WoT is a horrid example and people are getting fed up with it and thus subsequently leave.
Also could people PLEASE stop comparing WoT and Star Conflict? They might have some similar points but they are entirely different games with a different gameplay and approach. Sheesh, everywhere I go it’s WoT this, WoT that, well guess what:
One one hand you have some truth in what you say, on the other - that’s what squads are for - group of well communicating people with tactical preparation doing their job and being the core power of the team. You can’t expect group of random people who don’t even care to communicate via in-game chat to be better than a squad - no matter if it’s going to be 4 or 6 or 8 people, really. In such case randoms are often a cannon fodder and act as distraction - whether you like it or not.
True. But this is a game, and it should be friendly to all kinds of players. As I said, I think that there will be combat modes where large organized groups of people (6/8/12, dunno how much) will fight against the same once without hurting random players. I think that it is the best solution. And not to mention global map and corp battles in the future…
because WoT is a horrid example and people are getting fed up with it and thus subsequently leave.
And that’s why its online is growing and growing…
People, plz stop saying “Stop comparing my precious Star Conflict with this goddamn WoT”. A lot from Star Conflict was taken from WoT and I think that there will be much more taken in future. As someone said very exactly: “This game is like WoT and Freelancer have a baby” and I totally agree with this opinion.
Do people ingame HAVE to be in the same squad? Is there anything wrong ending up on opposite sides? As long as you got corps chat up, you can communicate, so why insist that you must all go together? In fact I believe you can sometimes have more fun going against each other in a friendly match than always playing against total strangers. I doubt that most of you are girls and SC isn’t the toilet, so there is really no need to bunch together.
Socialise in corp, fight in wingpairs. Don’t see anything wrong with that.
Do people ingame HAVE to be in the same squad? Is there anything wrong ending up on opposite sides? As long as you got corps chat up, you can communicate, so why insist that you must all go together? In fact I believe you can sometimes have more fun going against each other in a friendly match than always playing against total strangers. I doubt that most of you are girls and SC isn’t the toilet, so there is really no need to bunch together.
Socialise in corp, fight in wingpairs. Don’t see anything wrong with that.
Sexist comment aside sometimes people in Corps want to do things together. Mostly because they tend to be friends.
You’re right, there’s nothing wrong with a friendly match and that’s why a majority aren’t pushing to have formations larger than four members. I agree that four is just fine for the game. The issue that’s being discussed is if it’s acceptable to allow paying players a higher social privilege than those who do not pay.
Do you feel that it’s perfectly reasonable for people to have to pay money if they want to invite more than one person into a squad?
A lot of people have quoted WoT but take a look at other F2P games, like LoL; Do you think players would find it fair that having a 5 man team required a payment? Interaction should not be accessible for only a special few.
That is hardly the only benefit, you get bonus exp, creds and early access to higher level items.
It is not a total cutoff. They didn’t say “You didn’t pay, so no corp and no friends list for you.” You are just not garunteed that you would be fighting together. Or should they reduce licenced squad sizes to 3 so the “social discrepency” is not too drastic for you?
That is hardly the only benefit, you get bonus exp, creds and early access to higher level items.
It is not a total cutoff. They didn’t say “You didn’t pay, so no corp and no friends list for you.” You are just not garunteed that you would be fighting together. Or should they reduce licenced squad sizes to 3 so the “social discrepency” is not too drastic for you?
Not talking about the other benefits for paid license. Bonus experience, credits, reputation SHOULD be something that paying players get.
The fact still remains that people who pay are allowed more interaction either with their friends or the rest of the community via squads. Everything else that comes with the license is irrelevant. It’s obvious that you approve of the model but sometimes there will be people who can’t pay but want to play the game with more than one person.
If we are to believe that a F2P model gives paying customers ways to advance without giving them a true in-game advantage over other players than those who are able to invite more than one player WILL have an advantage over free players.
It was mentioned before that squads of four tend to do well and have better communication in matches. This is a clear advantage over someone playing for free with only one member in a squad. It hurts the game and the community.
Please keep the trolling out of this thread so Error doesn’t need to come and lock it. Also don’t imagine that I’m speaking as a free player. I’ve already bought my one month license.
(Lol, can’t write on the outside of the quote-box ô.o)