Rewards&Repairs

Apologies for the repost, but I feel this is pertinent to the question of whether or not PvP is a viable source of income.

 

I agree that generating the funds for a 3M+ ship when your net income is around 60k is rough. The game punishes deaths, but I have never gone negative in a single match.

 

The 75 games needed to reach 3M that I mentioned earlier was the worst-case-scenario. Even then, I maintain that 75 games is not impossible. You may even see personal improvement during that time. In comparison, 30 matches seems like a very short time indeed.

post-240228-0-63237000-1371016210.jpg

going thru a discussion with my clan in another game. we’re talking about migrating to a different game coz the current one have ceased development other than hack prevention. they found out i was playing SCon and inquired why I never forwarded it as a possible ‘next game’ to migrate to.

 

anyways when I finally did, the discussion revolved around how long it would take for everybody to be ‘competitive’ enough.

 

I deliberately did not submit actual numbers and kept the discussion along subjective lines because I know for a fact if I did give loyalty gain and income numbers Star Conflict will be an auto-reject.

 

This game takes too long for the average competitive player who comes from a market of instant competition like RTS and FPS games.

You can track, monitor and provide any form of spreadsheet and data you want but the way it is right now, Star Conflict is a niche market.

 

It will never be mainstream without a well thought out progression overhaul.

excerpt of some of that discussion. might be of interest to see how others view progression and competition.

 

 

by Ludens on Wed 12 Jun 2013 - 1:12

Is there interest in expanding to Star Conflict? Kine, HanSolo? 

Should we move this thread to our subforum, since only Creedlings have commented, or just quote?

 

 

by Kine² on Tue 25 Jun 2013 - 15:44

There aren’t any clan things to do in that game. You can setup a clan, pay for a clan tag ( [XXXXXX] is possible) and recruit people but that’s it currently. There is a campaign map where clans can try to win individual sectors but it’s in Beta and the same 6 clans own them everyday new ones are open for contest. It’s a broken mechanic where quantity > quality wins you territory.

 

Plus points for the game however:

 

  1. 100% free

  2. Low hardware spec - if you get 20fps on Pipeline, here you’ll get 60-80

  3. 90% teamwork - your team can score the most kills and still lose a match

  4. Zero lag. No one is going to kill you behind walls. Yes there are walls in space

 

Minus points for SCon are:

 

  1. 4 man squads only - and this is just stupid but necessary for balance
  • Creed can have 12 people online but you can only guarantee 4 will fly together

 

  1. HEAVY Grinding. It’ll take you 3-4 months to reach competitive ‘BB match’ standard

 

  1. Quantity > Quality - way things work, you’d need the numbers. One pro clan started off as quality only recruitment and it didn’t work out too well for them. They later switched to quantity and hit top 3 in territory the next month.

 

I’m there everyday. Whatever hours I used to put into xxxxx daily has now been re-routed to Star Conflict. It is 3 times more addictive and that seems to be the general opinion of everyone who played or reviewed it. You get hooked. Whatever tactics that you’ve developed as a xxxxx - Creed - TPS player applies directly to this game. Players like DK would totally pwn here for eg. Bonus point is that perfect bot aim is almost not important. Missiles use guided lock-ons. Ship hitboxes are from 20-100 feet in diameter. Creedlings are not gonna miss that.

 

Clan features are coming tho. No news when but updates are bi-monthly affairs here like clockwork and every Thursdays minor patches are applied so development is visible unlike xxxxx 

 

To be competitive when clan vs clan comes out you’d need to grind this alot so it is a BIG time investment. Unlike xxxxx where you can just jump in n play at top level, Star Conflict requires you to rank up and access higher level equipment. This is why I’ve not considered suggesting this as a next-Creed-game.

 

That being said, download is 4GB via Steam. I think it’s worthwhile for someone from Creed who hates sci-fi shooters to give a fair review tho.

 

 

by Kine² on Tue 25 Jun 2013 - 16:02

 

Eh I forgot the biggest thing about it.

 

Different ships serve different roles and you have to choose one as you enter a match. No one single role can function, let alone survive without the other ships supporting you.

 

for eg.

 

Tox cannot be Tox without another Creedling providing some form of support no matter how good he thinks he is. And this is just how the game works. To me that’s the biggest thing about it. You rely on others so you can be yourself to do your thing. Teamwork people.

 

At BB level, flying alone or mis-matched roles/teams = guaranteed failure.

 

 

by Eminem on Tue 25 Jun 2013 - 18:45

Meh, even if no one else in Creed is interested (but with 35+ active players, there’s bound to be a couple who’d fly with you), I still see it as an untapped recruiting resource. If you could be an ambassador over there and start the Creed branch (even if it’s just you initially), that’s something we can build on over time.

 

But you guys really need to update OP - how unprofessional is it to have a Steam player read the OP and see how much we talk about xxxxx? It’s outdated and overdue for an edit.

 

by BravoTango on Tue 25 Jun 2013 - 21:46

 

Kine’s review makes me really want to play it, but not play it at the same time.  Sounds like a fun game that is addictive, but I’m not looking for a game where I have to do the grind to level up… unless the grind is fun or really necessary to learn the game.

 

Right now I’m playing xx-xx-xx  and I’m hating it because I have the skill to play at a higher level, but I have to do menial tasks (i.e., grinding) before I can level up.  There are also waiting periods before you can do anything so 90% of the game is doing nothing.  The leveling system seems arbitrary, which is frustrating.

 

Contrast that with PS2 where I have to grind to earn XP to buy things and level up.  I don’t mind that because, if you have the skill, the game allows you to kill people at a much higher level than you.  Really, leveling up is a status thing, not a necessary thing you need to do to unlock items you need to be competitive.

 

So which one is Star Conflict more like?

 

by Kine² on Wed 26 Jun 2013 - 6:30

 

If you have the skills and understanding of game mechanics + a lil bit of math, you can kill anybody

 

You can win the game without killing anyone in-fact. Just being in the right ship, flying next to the right person at the right time.

 

But you’d be playing at 110% just to come up 50-50 against someone playing 90% simply because he has better gear.

 

And that’s in pub matches.

 

Imagine going against Hash with attachments and Creed without. Can you win? Yes. Is it fair or competitive ?

 

The game is in Beta and the Devs promised to relax on the equipment grind when they get closer to launch and I’m vocally fighting for it on their forums. But so far it’s a waiting game.

 

As for the grind itself, you level up as you play so it isn’t a chore. No menial tasks to complete, you earn XP as you play and when you play enough you unlock new things. There are 2 different unlocks. Ships and Equipment. Ship unlocks comes by very quickly. Got my first BB level ship in under a week. The equipment on the other hand …

 

by BravoTango on Wed 26 Jun 2013 - 7:15

 

You’ve got me intrigued.  I might give this a try next time I have some free time.

 

Apologies for the repost, but I feel this is pertinent to the question of whether or not PvP is a viable source of income.

 

I agree that generating the funds for a 3M+ ship when your net income is around 60k is rough. The game punishes deaths, but I have never gone negative in a single match.

 

The 75 games needed to reach 3M that I mentioned earlier was the worst-case-scenario. Even then, I maintain that 75 games is not impossible. You may even see personal improvement during that time. In comparison, 30 matches seems like a very short time indeed.

 

you are doing an impressive amount of not dying, and winning.  Your spreadsheet shows that you win 80% of the time, and only had significant repair costs once.  I would suggest this is not typical.  Most players should hover around 45% wins, and die more often.  So the reward you got from that 1.5 hours of game play would end up around 800k, not 1M on average.  So I’m still looking at six hours of play just to bank 3.2 million.  

 

In 6 hours of BF3, I can level significantly, as well as unlocking all the attachments for several guns.  And I don’t have to play more to use said attachments, they are ready from the get go.  Also, I can use all my unlocked stuff without risking repair costs eating all my profit, something I cannot do in SC.  

you are doing an impressive amount of not dying, and winning.  Your spreadsheet shows that you win 80% of the time, and only had significant repair costs once.  I would suggest this is not typical.  Most players should hover around 45% wins, and die more often.  So the reward you got from that 1.5 hours of game play would end up around 800k, not 1M on average.  So I’m still looking at six hours of play just to bank 3.2 million.  

 

In 6 hours of BF3, I can level significantly, as well as unlocking all the attachments for several guns.  And I don’t have to play more to use said attachments, they are ready from the get go.  Also, I can use all my unlocked stuff without risking repair costs eating all my profit, something I cannot do in SC.  

Indeed. I created that spreadsheet more to show the upper limits of net income, the kind of numbers that are possible if the circumstances are right. For new or average players, I can understand how the progression would feel slow. I am just uncertain as to what values others might believe more appropriate. How many hours do you think it should take to get 3.2M? How many games?

 

Keep the conversations rolling. There are eyes and ears everywhere. ;]

 

You know, in a good way.

I feel that a 10% increase in come might change a lot, even tho it really isnt. 

Not to mention ships without goddamn mk1 crap would save A LOT of credits! We all figured out how to proper fit our ships, let the new newbies do that as well. Enough people willing to help otherwise.

Indeed. I created that spreadsheet more to show the upper limits of net income, the kind of numbers that are possible if the circumstances are right. For new or average players, I can understand how the progression would feel slow. I am just uncertain as to what values others might believe more appropriate. How many hours do you think it should take to get 3.2M? How many games?

 

Keep the conversations rolling. There are eyes and ears everywhere. ;]

 

You know, in a good way.

 

That is really dependent on the dev’s model.  Right now, they don’t have much content, comparatively speaking, so they have restricted much of it in the grinding so as to extend game play.  The down side is that it hurts the players who do tough it out or buy licenses and get to the top tier, since the majority of players won’t go there.  Even T3 is limited, due to the cost of losing with multiple ships.  

You want to have your players feel rewarded for playing, not punished for losing.  How does that translate into credits/synergy/rep per battle?  

 

I think that is the wrong mechanic.  It is the old World of Warcraft idea writ small, but I don’t believe the devs can change it because they would have to revise their whole business model.  So it doesn’t really matter.  They will always have to adjust it to keep most people out of T3/T4 (until T5 opens) just to give the aura of exclusivity.  

T4 repairs could benefit from further re-adjustment:

 

Overall loss of 18945 credits from a Defeated PvP combat.

Attached pic.

 

Awarded: 102701

Total Repair and ammo replacement costs: 121646

post-23317-0-32451700-1375617711.jpg