Please make a bug report and attach the following information:
most people wouldn’t even care and just close the app and launch a different steam game Error. Me I went back to watching Game of Thrones.
you dont need logs to fix MM.
Tier 1 is meant to be a learning tier though, if everyone starts farming T1 newbs then they are less likely to enjoy the game and stick around to progress into higher tiers to raise the player count
Nah, I struggle through T4 these days, make it T5 (or make it go away).
games based on progression and power brackets will cordon off the lowest tier for newbiies ONLY meaning people exceeding a certain point cannot tier back down. this protects beginners. I dont understand why it isn’t already in place in SCon. we have a host of criteria to choose from to block tiering down from unlocked ship ranks, matches played, medals earned etc etc.
No premium ships in T5, Sector Conquest, cost and grind for modules etc. gets in the way of competitive ranking. The higher the tier the less people feel they are able to compete for leaderboard fairly. T4 is underused, underpopulated and has premium ships. It’s just nice. Also may serve as incentive for people to purplize their T4s.
games based on progression and power brackets will cordon off the lowest tier for newbiies ONLY meaning people exceeding a certain point cannot tier back down. this protects beginners. I dont understand why it isn’t already in place in SCon. we have a host of criteria to choose from to block tiering down from unlocked ship ranks, matches played, medals earned etc etc.
No premium ships in T5, Sector Conquest, cost and grind for modules etc. gets in the way of competitive ranking. The higher the tier the less people feel they are able to compete for leaderboard fairly. T4 is underused, underpopulated and has premium ships. It’s just nice. Also may serve as incentive for people to purplize their T4s.
Dev should make T1 playable only for players with battles less than a certain amount, let’s say 500 battles. If you have more than 500 games, then you can only enter T2-T5. How’s that?
Dev should make T1 playable only for players with battles less than a certain amount, let’s say 500 battles. If you have more than 500 games, then you can only enter T2-T5. How’s that?
Not good for those who bought T1 premium ships (not me). But there was an extended discussion about I think all related to T1: [http://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/topic/22740-remove-all-stats-from-t1/](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/22740-remove-all-stats-from-t1/)
People should be allowed to play T1 but with no effects to stats when you reached a certain rank .
If Devs are going to stop people “tiering down”, then they need to refund all GS spent on previous tiers once they get locked out.
But the core issues that I see are these: the game needs to keep people playing; to get people to advance; and to get people to improve.
First, keeping people around. Well, this recent set of changes won’t do that. What keeps people engaged is good gameplay and low wait times. This game is absolute xxxx when you’re stuck in 4v4, 5v5 or 6v6 matches. You need 8-10 minimum to get a true feel for the game, but if you want a seriously good experience you need closer to 12-16 per side. To get that consistently, the game needs more players, and it needs to hold on to the ones it gets. Right now, the game actively punishes you for wanting to fly with your friends (bad move - having friends in a game is a big part of what keeps people playing), it encourages veterans to tier down, not tier up, and it has a lot of needless grind for the sake of trying to pick your pockets. Forcing players to choose between being farmed for 200 matches or coughing up $60 for decent gear is not a good way to make money - it’s a good way to kill your game.
Second, It needs to stop encouraging veterans to tier down. That means it needs to stop rewarding bad behaviour - this “GS for highscore placements” is a prime example of this kind of bad design. Another is the grind - making it needlessly difficult to get Mk III and Mk IV gear for T4 / T5 ships, and / or getting those ships to begin with. Lastly, all the DLC is tied up in Tiers 2 and 3. You cannot realistically expect someone to drop hundreds of dollars on a F2P game and then abandon their purchases. This was fine back when we had four tiers and T3 was more like modern T4, but now it’s way out of whack and needs to be addressed.
The reward structure needs to push people upward. Instead of giving GS out to be best T1 farmer every week, they should be giving GS out to all T4 pilots. Win a T4 / T5 match and there should be a chance to find Gold Standards in your loot. Make it rare, sure, but also make it so only T4 and T5 can get that. Scrap the scoreboards altogether, and scrap all the stats with it - “Skill Rating” has nothing to do with your actual skill, so it shouldn’t exist at all.
Third, it needs to stop punishing teamwork and start punishing bad players. Pugs with 30 PvP games and a 0.2 KDR are NOT entitled to play T5 PvP. I’m guessing that the people in charge of the company come from some other industry, because if they were gamers they would know this. All gamers learn pretty quickly that in order to access all the content you need to put the work in. Star Conflict is no exception. This attitude worked just fine back in the 0.6 era where the game routinely clocked 6K+ players online at any one time; Now,the Devs want to let everyone play what they like, and the player count is half what it was.
Finally, the Devs need to learn how to do damage control. Seriously, it’s embarrassing how bad this is. It’s like… it’s like whoever’s in charge of PR thinks he’s pitching a movie, and it’s 1993. Devs, wake up. Killzone: Shadow Fall patched its single player campaign to give players more freedom of movement during parts they felt were “too linear”. Note “felt”, as in the actual opinion of the actual players, not some metric. Runescape? Start of every month they put out a game plan of what they intent to get done that month. They run weekly polls on everything and have gone so far as to COMPLETELY SCRAP CONTENT because the community feedback was lacklustre. Even UbiSoft made a half-arsed attempt to get the community involved by releasing GameLab and letting people rate the missions in Single Player so they could get an idea of what sort of missions people like and dislike.
This is how game development works in the 21st century. You have access to real time data and feedback from everyone, and moreover people expect that now. People expect to be connected to things they support. They expect to be able to get feedback from the creators of games and have their concerns addressed. It’s expected from companies large and small, and by and large the companies that are getting a lot of flak and are really struggling are the ones that haven’t grasped this notion yet.
The single biggest issue with Star Conflict is, and always has been, that there is a deeply entrenched feeling of resentment toward the dev team. Back when I joined it was pretty much accepted as fact that the Devs totally ignored everything posted in the English forums. Patch notes weren’t posted most of the time, and when they were they were late and incomplete. It took a long time for that to change, but a sense of that still lingers.
Nobody on this forum wants this game to fail. If they did they wouldn’t be posting about it - they’d just leave and find a better game to play. As such, you need to remember that a very large chunk of the criticism you get on the forums is from people who want to make the game better and feel you are making big mistakes in the direction you’ve taken. Instead of addressing their concerns, or even inviting discussion as to what the issue is, you just delete posts and ban people. That’s like firing a programmer for finding bugs instead of making him fix them - it doesn’t solve the problem, it just gets rid of the guy pointing the problem out!
Seriously, this game is a Beta. Treat it like one. Take some of the long-standing demands and say “Okay, for the month of June we’re going to totally overhaul the ship tree to the linear style the forums have asked for time and again for almost a year. We’ll use this time to see how both new and old players feel about this revised ship tree and, depending on results keep it, roll it back or find some compromise in between.” Stuff like that would go a long way to garnering more respect from your players.
If nothing else, can you PLEASE just get into the habit of doing two simple little things: 1) Post about big changes at least two weeks in advance, and 2) If the forum says it’s a stupid idea, CHANGE IT BEFORE RELEASE! Seriously, odds are if people on this forum are saying “x is broken”, then it’s better to change it before launch, not two weeks later when the metrics agree with us.
If Devs are going to stop people “tiering down”, then they need to refund all GS spent on previous tiers once they get locked out.
But the core issues that I see are these: the game needs to keep people playing; to get people to advance; and to get people to improve.
First, keeping people around. Well, this recent set of changes won’t do that. What keeps people engaged is good gameplay and low wait times. This game is absolute xxxx when you’re stuck in 4v4, 5v5 or 6v6 matches. You need 8-10 minimum to get a true feel for the game, but if you want a seriously good experience you need closer to 12-16 per side. To get that consistently, the game needs more players, and it needs to hold on to the ones it gets. Right now, the game actively punishes you for wanting to fly with your friends (bad move - having friends in a game is a big part of what keeps people playing), it encourages veterans to tier down, not tier up, and it has a lot of needless grind for the sake of trying to pick your pockets. Forcing players to choose between being farmed for 200 matches or coughing up $60 for decent gear is not a good way to make money - it’s a good way to kill your game.
Second, It needs to stop encouraging veterans to tier down. That means it needs to stop rewarding bad behaviour - this “GS for highscore placements” is a prime example of this kind of bad design. Another is the grind - making it needlessly difficult to get Mk III and Mk IV gear for T4 / T5 ships, and / or getting those ships to begin with. Lastly, all the DLC is tied up in Tiers 2 and 3. You cannot realistically expect someone to drop hundreds of dollars on a F2P game and then abandon their purchases. This was fine back when we had four tiers and T3 was more like modern T4, but now it’s way out of whack and needs to be addressed.
The reward structure needs to push people upward. Instead of giving GS out to be best T1 farmer every week, they should be giving GS out to all T4 pilots. Win a T4 / T5 match and there should be a chance to find Gold Standards in your loot. Make it rare, sure, but also make it so only T4 and T5 can get that. Scrap the scoreboards altogether, and scrap all the stats with it - “Skill Rating” has nothing to do with your actual skill, so it shouldn’t exist at all.Third, it needs to stop punishing teamwork and start punishing bad players. Pugs with 30 PvP games and a 0.2 KDR are NOT entitled to play T5 PvP. I’m guessing that the people in charge of the company come from some other industry, because if they were gamers they would know this. All gamers learn pretty quickly that in order to access all the content you need to put the work in. Star Conflict is no exception. This attitude worked just fine back in the 0.6 era where the game routinely clocked 6K+ players online at any one time; Now,the Devs want to let everyone play what they like, and the player count is half what it was.
Finally, the Devs need to learn how to do damage control. Seriously, it’s embarrassing how bad this is. It’s like… it’s like whoever’s in charge of PR thinks he’s pitching a movie, and it’s 1993. Devs, wake up. Killzone: Shadow Fall patched its single player campaign to give players more freedom of movement during parts they felt were “too linear”. Note “felt”, as in the actual opinion of the actual players, not some metric. Runescape? Start of every month they put out a game plan of what they intent to get done that month. They run weekly polls on everything and have gone so far as to COMPLETELY SCRAP CONTENT because the community feedback was lacklustre. Even UbiSoft made a half-arsed attempt to get the community involved by releasing GameLab and letting people rate the missions in Single Player so they could get an idea of what sort of missions people like and dislike.
This is how game development works in the 21st century. You have access to real time data and feedback from everyone, and moreover people expect that now. People expect to be connected to things they support. They expect to be able to get feedback from the creators of games and have their concerns addressed. It’s expected from companies large and small, and by and large the companies that are getting a lot of flak and are really struggling are the ones that haven’t grasped this notion yet.
The single biggest issue with Star Conflict is, and always has been, that there is a deeply entrenched feeling of resentment toward the dev team. Back when I joined it was pretty much accepted as fact that the Devs totally ignored everything posted in the English forums. Patch notes weren’t posted most of the time, and when they were they were late and incomplete. It took a long time for that to change, but a sense of that still lingers.
Nobody on this forum wants this game to fail. If they did they wouldn’t be posting about it - they’d just leave and find a better game to play. As such, you need to remember that a very large chunk of the criticism you get on the forums is from people who want to make the game better and feel you are making big mistakes in the direction you’ve taken. Instead of addressing their concerns, or even inviting discussion as to what the issue is, you just delete posts and ban people. That’s like firing a programmer for finding bugs instead of making him fix them - it doesn’t solve the problem, it just gets rid of the guy pointing the problem out!
Seriously, this game is a Beta. Treat it like one. Take some of the long-standing demands and say “Okay, for the month of June we’re going to totally overhaul the ship tree to the linear style the forums have asked for time and again for almost a year. We’ll use this time to see how both new and old players feel about this revised ship tree and, depending on results keep it, roll it back or find some compromise in between.” Stuff like that would go a long way to garnering more respect from your players.
If nothing else, can you PLEASE just get into the habit of doing two simple little things: 1) Post about big changes at least two weeks in advance, and 2) If the forum says it’s a stupid idea, CHANGE IT BEFORE RELEASE! Seriously, odds are if people on this forum are saying “x is broken”, then it’s better to change it before launch, not two weeks later when the metrics agree with us.
Nice long post.
Player just need to be aware there is only grind if they wanted to grind. If you have to buy your way up to get to higher ranks you are doing it wrong. I’m not opposing paying for something, the devs have to life from something. But when someone new starts playing they have no idea how it works and think you have to spend GS/money.
But that is not the case. I created an alt account without spending any money and noticed there is no need to have even have Mk2 gear if you are good. Mk4 gear doesn’t make you a better pilot. And no you don’t need Rank3 ship to win in T1, Rank1 does just fine. If I knew that 6months ago I could have saved a lot of money (I would have still spend money but would have a lot more, like more premium ships).
If you naturally progress and take advantage of sales there is no need to grind and you are as far progressed as your skill.
I know how that sounds and if someone would have said that to me 4 or 5 months ago I would have thought he is nuts.
There wouldn’t be a need to post patch changes in advance if they have a proper testing team and/or listen to them.
Must read, interesting opinion.
Yes, to an extent grind is self-inflicted. However, I also submit that “grind” stops being grind if it’s fun.
For example, I do not have to grind credits. I currently make so much money that credits just “happen” as I play. If I cannot afford something I just go back to playing as I was, or perhaps go find another ship that needs levelling up, and the credits will happen.
Loyalty, on the other hand, is pure grind because I have to go out of my way to get it. It doesn’t “happen” organically. I have occasionally glanced at my income after a glorious night of bravely hiding behind a rock while my corp-makes murder people 5km away to find I suddenly have an extra three million that wasn’t there when I started. However, I have never looked up to find I earned 20K loyalty with the Vanguard without noticing. In fact, it’s much more likely that I’ve looked up and said “xxxx! Those past four games I had no contracts active!”
Grind is a chore. This game’s core remains fun enough that you shouldn’t need to grind for anything. Credits, loyalty, synergy; all of that should just naturally pile up as you play without ever having to worry about it. But it doesn’t, and part of that is because the Devs have tried to monetise progression at the expense of the F2P pilots. This is, in my opinion, never a wise move.
We lost another 500 players doing to this patch even if it wasn’t on purpose, If they gonna keep this game to survive in the future they have to do:
1: Start advertising this game for once
2: Get open space world up and running as soon as possible
3: Better and faster servers for us and the other countrys so they can play this game too in a fair ping
4: Remake Matchmaking system again and start from the beginning to a point where they can survey it and slowly evolve into the right direction by our feedback (again),
And now the farming in tier 1/2 doing to reward of standards in leaderboards,
Pro people going in the lower tiers can Not be tolerated In this case, the reputation and numbers of active beginners are going low because of this! and it does as some in here says need a Restricted to the stats for high pro players to make it fair for everyone to the leaderboards
Cry.
T1 gold farmers from large corporations. What a load of hypocrites.
Everyone has their price after all, it seems.
Yes, to an extent grind is self-inflicted. However, I also submit that “grind” stops being grind if it’s fun.
For example, I do not have to grind credits. I currently make so much money that credits just “happen” as I play. If I cannot afford something I just go back to playing as I was, or perhaps go find another ship that needs levelling up, and the credits will happen.
Loyalty, on the other hand, is pure grind because I have to go out of my way to get it. It doesn’t “happen” organically. I have occasionally glanced at my income after a glorious night of bravely hiding behind a rock while my corp-makes murder people 5km away to find I suddenly have an extra three million that wasn’t there when I started. However, I have never looked up to find I earned 20K loyalty with the Vanguard without noticing. In fact, it’s much more likely that I’ve looked up and said “xxxx! Those past four games I had no contracts active!”
Grind is a chore. This game’s core remains fun enough that you shouldn’t need to grind for anything. Credits, loyalty, synergy; all of that should just naturally pile up as you play without ever having to worry about it. But it doesn’t, and part of that is because the Devs have tried to monetise progression at the expense of the F2P pilots. This is, in my opinion, never a wise move.
But it does, that is my point. If you expect to catch up to corp mates who spend a lot of money and/or did a lot more battles then yes you have to grind if you want to get there fast. But that is a decision you make and not the devs or the game. There is no cold beer or hot chick (no offense this is just an expression) waiting for you at the end of T5 or having all ships with full Mk4 gear.
I haven’t bought (with GS) any artifacts and went only for the free artifacts and noticed that the artifacts go down faster than the vouchers.
yes you can buy upgrade kits for credits but there is that buying again and those credits are better used for Mk2 upgrades or buying other modules … I can go one and one just read my thread about economy (see signature)
Added:
The main issue why there is grind are the lack of players. If everyone can play their Tier they are in all the time there wouldn’t be any grinding in PvE or paying for stuff in T5 that you earned in T3. I got in T5 PvP on a weekend when there was double synergy 100k synergy on the T5 ship. That is almost half of the upper levels. And I got a nice amount of credits. And I think that wasn’t even with premium license (but do have 20% bonus from DLC).
Members of big corps invest a lot of time into the game, which is why they want GS related products, which is why they try to get GS without paying real money for it. I think the SQ approach, while not perfect, is a good way to introduce “earned” GS into the game. The Highscores, however, are not. I know it’ll be at least two weeks before we get any sign of a change, but I would love to see a hotfix. Again, my respect for the Devs would jump up a notch if we got someone like Antibus coming here and saying “Yeah, we totally dropped the ball on this. We didn’t expect people to start farming Tier 1, so we’re pulling the plug until we can find a way to fix it.”
@Enny the issue isn’t just about catching up - the issue is that unless you go out of your way to assign contracts after every match, and make sure to complete them as quickly as possible, you get smacked in the face with a progression block. If you don’t grind Loyalty, you can’t earn Mk III. If you don’t have Mk III you can’t upgrade to Mk IV. It’s a deliberate exploitation of an unpopular and unnecessary system.
Now let me be clear, I don’t have a problem with the Synergy Transfer concept (ie: paying GS to transfer free synergy from an “Elite” ship to a non-elite). The issue I have with that is the exchange rate - right now it’s on sale at 1GS for 400 synergy. That should be the norm. Likewise, I am fine with Licences to give +50% reward. It’s a good system; pay GS, get reward.
The issue with Loyalty is it’s overall mechanic is flawed. To earn Loyalty all we should have to do is pick a faction, then play. No contracts, just a direct link to synergy income. Say, get 1 loyalty per 5 synergy or something. I don’t know, I’m pulling numbers out of the air her. Point is, that kind of mechanic is effortless, and if you still aren’t satisfied you can throw GS at the problem to make it go away. But under a passive model you have no waste. You can’t “forget” to tick a box saying you want to earn credits in this next battle, so why should you have to tick a box to say you want to earn Loyalty?
Members of big corps invest a lot of time into the game, which is why they want GS related products, which is why they try to get GS without paying real money for it. I think the SQ approach, while not perfect, is a good way to introduce “earned” GS into the game. The Highscores, however, are not. I know it’ll be at least two weeks before we get any sign of a change, but I would love to see a hotfix. Again, my respect for the Devs would jump up a notch if we got someone like Antibus coming here and saying “Yeah, we totally dropped the ball on this. We didn’t expect people to start farming Tier 1, so we’re pulling the plug until we can find a way to fix it.”
@Enny the issue isn’t just about catching up - the issue is that unless you go out of your way to assign contracts after every match, and make sure to complete them as quickly as possible, you get smacked in the face with a progression block. If you don’t grind Loyalty, you can’t earn Mk III. If you don’t have Mk III you can’t upgrade to Mk IV. It’s a deliberate exploitation of an unpopular and unnecessary system.
Now let me be clear, I don’t have a problem with the Synergy Transfer concept (ie: paying GS to transfer free synergy from an “Elite” ship to a non-elite). The issue I have with that is the exchange rate - right now it’s on sale at 1GS for 400 synergy. That should be the norm. Likewise, I am fine with Licences to give +50% reward. It’s a good system; pay GS, get reward.
The issue with Loyalty is it’s overall mechanic is flawed. To earn Loyalty all we should have to do is pick a faction, then play. No contracts, just a direct link to synergy income. Say, get 1 loyalty per 5 synergy or something. I don’t know, I’m pulling numbers out of the air her. Point is, that kind of mechanic is effortless, and if you still aren’t satisfied you can throw GS at the problem to make it go away. But under a passive model you have no waste. You can’t “forget” to tick a box saying you want to earn credits in this next battle, so why should you have to tick a box to say you want to earn Loyalty?
I agree the loyalty voucher could be more linear and less hassle. Clicking on contracts every time and gambling what game mode I’m gonna get next as some vouchers are for beacon capture or other special things. Making the contracts less arbitrary would be great.
Even loot is less arbitrary and more linear than vouchers.
If you want something arbitrary you can do the stuff from your contacts/assignments.
Vouchers could be like another resource you gain with each battle like you do now with synergy and credits. I would even rename it and not call them loyalty and also remove the different factions, so just “voucher” or whatever you want to call it. That is similar to what you suggested but not linked directly to another resource.
I’m not saying with that you should overall get more vouchers than you otherwise would get now by always getting something of the contracts completed or partly completed.
But any non contract based system is better than what it is now and the pilots can go back to just playing to win. heck you could link these new voucher directly to match win and percentage of total efficiency of your team…
Death to contracts, always been saying that. When I remember to pick them up I won’t play for the win and when I cannot be bothered to pick them up I fall behind. Contracts are a chore and need to go.
People farming poor guys in T1 for 400 miserable GS they WONT get, becuase there will be always someone with higher efficiency.
How cheap, seriously, instead of being men and trying to go for the “top kills” they go for the easy option, what a shame, and it doesn’t matter who does it.
Just giving my xxxx opinion.
Here’s something to try instead of pissing off newbies.
-
Get 5 willing friends or whatever
-
Queue all together in a dead tier until you get a game with them only
-
???
-
Profits !
I’m not responsible if you get banned
People farming poor guys in T1 for 400 miserable GS they WONT get, becuase there will be always someone with higher efficiency.
How cheap, seriously, instead of being men and trying to go for the “top kills” they go for the easy option, what a shame, and it doesn’t matter who does it.
Just giving my xxxx opinion.
Actually,your opinion is a golden opinion,it’s all about the money,they’ll do anything to get those golds.They are all skilled,they down to t1 with their purple stuff and kill every single one in the whole match (Bots included),all they did in the whole match is getting all the kill and let the damn objective there…Just giving another opinion…But not all of them do that stuff,some play fairly,focus on the objective,play for fun…
I remember the good old times in 0.7 was it ? When after the end of the battle you earned Credits and loyalty. With bonus loyalty from cotracts.
Instead of them removing the contracts and make faction change 50gs/1M credits instead of 100k credits they did the wrong thing and removed the steady flow, leaving the bad part.
Imagine. You earn Credits and 10%* of that amount in loyalty on the side you have chosen (1 of 6, not 1 of 3) and then when you get all the loyalty needed for that faction you switch to another. Hell, make it 50GS and GS only option, people got to spend some money anyway. Or try harder in sector conquest or another form of EARNED GS.
Keep the limit to 1M, so you can not just conserve 20 million loyalty with your T3 ships then go T4-5 and automatically get all the best stuff. You have to switch sub-factions again and earn/buy GS again.
I hope if they implement something like this, and ofc we know how do they operate with prices, you guys will not hate/linch me. for the idea about another GS sink.
* or it should be tied with efficiency
* or it should be tied with efficiency
I won’t farm T1/PVE efficiency for 400 GS but if they gave loyalty based on efficiency I would.
Thank you for making this a solo game again.
New squad MM is not good.