If the Devs followed this idea and made a change this smart I would go premium the next day. This would fix sooo much and make the game fun again. Great post Jason
If the devs followed this and then allowed me to have heavy plasmas on my frigate again then I would go premium as soon as they stopped patching.
If the devs followed this and then allowed me to have heavy plasmas on my frigate again then I would go premium as soon as they stopped patching.
And i want to be able to fly a mobile guard at R9, so, do not expect any support from me for your Ships tree.
Ship Tree
- Ship tree has been redesigned. Each tier now contains three interceptors, three fighters and three frigates. Each class now contains two of the faction’s primary type per tier, and one of the secondary type per tier.
- Premium ships are now integrated into the ship tree, allowing players to advance through purchasing them.
For premium ships, I’d simply like to see Rank 3,6,9,12,15 of each class under the primary role of the faction in the tree. So 3 premium ships per tier per faction in a nice spread and put within the actual tree as you suggested.
Synergy
- Synergy requirements to advance between ships has been reduced. Ships now require approximately 40-60% total synergy to allow advancement.
- “Elite Synergy” now transferable for credits to ships of the same tier and faction, or can be converted into Free synergy for Gold Standards. Cost of transfer and conversion scale based on tier.
- Premium ships no-longer come with full synergy. Players who currently own Premium ships will not lose any existing synergy, but future purchases will be set to 0 synergy.
- Because of changes to the ship tree, Synergy has been removed and must be manually reapplied to all ships. No synergy has been lost as a result of this change.
I’d prefer to see Elite Synergy follow the same game mechanics as any other free synergy in terms of where you can apply it. Just make it cost credits instead of gold standards and it’s all good. Otherwise we overcomplicate things without a good reason.
Ships
- Rank 4 and 5 ships have had their module slots changed to those of Rank 6 ships.
- Rank 7 and 8 ships have had their module slots changed to those of Rank 9 ships.
- Rank 10 and 11 ships have had their module slots changed to those of Rank 12 ships.
- Rank 12 and 13 ships have had their module slots changed to those of Rank 15 ships.
This is the only thing I don’t like - it removes a sense of progression and makes each new ship you unlock a direct downgrade, until eventually it is a sidegrade at best.
The only motivation to grind through ships is that the next ship is always a tiny bit better. Remove this and some progression orientated players will be less attracted to the game. (Myself included, I feel there already is too little progression as it is, with too much focus on providing an even playing field for newcomers in a tier)
For premium ships, I’d simply like to see Rank 3,6,9,12,15 of each class under the primary role of the faction in the tree. So 3 premium ships per tier per faction in a nice spread and put within the actual tree as you suggested.
I’d prefer to see Elite Synergy follow the same game mechanics as any other free synergy in terms of where you can apply it. Just make it cost credits instead of gold standards and it’s all good. Otherwise we overcomplicate things without a good reason.
This is the only thing I don’t like - it removes a sense of progression and makes each new ship you unlock a direct downgrade, until eventually it is a sidegrade at best.
The only motivation to grind through ships is that the next ship is always a tiny bit better. Remove this and some progression orientated players will be less attracted to the game. (Myself included, I feel there already is too little progression as it is, with too much focus on providing an even playing field for newcomers in a tier)
This is a PvP game. I’m more concerned with actually having a fighting chance with any ship I choose. In a MOBA game, progression should be about unlocking more options and specialization, as oppose to unlocking straight up power. We don’t even have enough players to support 5 tiers of progression. If it were up to me. I would make all ships on the same level, with a huge amount of variation of bonuses and other things that make them different.
This is a PvP game. I’m more concerned with actually having a fighting chance with any ship I choose. In a MOBA game, progression should be about unlocking more options and specialization, as oppose to unlocking straight up power. We don’t even have enough players to support 5 tiers of progression. If it were up to me. I would make all ships on the same level, with a huge amount of variation of bonuses and other things that make them different.
The downside of that is that it would directly alienate a part of the player base who play this game because it’s a more interesting method of progression than your average shooter or MOBA.
I sympathise and understand your point of view on this - but it’s not what I’m looking for in this game. A balance between both is much more ideal.
That said, I’m a huge supporter of eliminating mixed tier queues, which would be a big step in the direction of what you’re looking for - whilst not eliminating any of the progression mechanics.
Yeah, but in this game the more you progress, the worst this game becomes. And I’m not talking about gameplay wise (although you could make an argument for that too). Longer queues, more likely to be put into bot matches, more likely to get stomped by LOLsquad, matches become more unbalanced… the list goes on.
Realistically we don’t have the player base to support this kind of “progression” and honestly I doubt this game ever will. People don’t want to get stomped on by mega maxed players. This just doesn’t work in a soley PvP oriented game. I want choices, I want every ship to actually be viable to play, instead of being forced to grind through ships that are not viable to play.
I mean seriously why force new players to play crappy ships when they are already crappy players against people are good players who have already grinded good ships? Are you people sadist or something???
/moved
I’d prefer to see Elite Synergy follow the same game mechanics as any other free synergy in terms of where you can apply it. Just make it cost credits instead of gold standards and it’s all good. Otherwise we overcomplicate things without a good reason.
They would need to make sure that the cost is less than the average victory credits. Otherwise you’ll gain more synergy than credits can buy and end up with surplus synergy until you farm PvE.
Just do it already!
Just do it already!
Same here. Let’s see if 0.9.1 can redeem some of the shortcomings of 0.9.0
JasanQuinn, on 04 Aug 2013 - 16:51, said:[](< base_url >/index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=findpost&pid=215667)
Ships
- Rank 4 and 5 ships have had their module slots changed to those of Rank 6 ships.
- Rank 7 and 8 ships have had their module slots changed to those of Rank 9 ships.
- Rank 10 and 11 ships have had their module slots changed to those of Rank 12 ships.
- Rank 12 and 13 ships have had their module slots changed to those of Rank 15 ships.
This is the only thing I don’t like - it removes a sense of progression and makes each new ship you unlock a direct downgrade, until eventually it is a sidegrade at best.
The only motivation to grind through ships is that the next ship is always a tiny bit better. Remove this and some progression orientated players will be less attracted to the game. (Myself included, I feel there already is too little progression as it is, with too much focus on providing an even playing field for newcomers in a tier)
I partially agree and disagree with this as well.
Having the ships listed like in Jasan’s OP (making an example with Tier 2 Empire fighters):
Rank 4 - faction specific ship , gunship (tier entry ship)
Rank 5 - faction side-specific ship , command (want to fly another class but i don’t have access to this Jericho level yet)
Rank 6 - faction specific ship , gunship
You can see the progression / alternance. However, just as Evil says, i wouldn’t really give the rank 4 gunship the same slots as the rank 6, but it would work very well if it had rank 5 slotting, and rank 5 remaining as rank 5. That wouldn’t make them useless, but also it wouldn’t bring them too much at the level of the max ranked ship or compete hardcore with other faction’s specific ships which the side-specific ship compensates - the Jeri rank 6 command in this case.
If it were to make them all as Jasan’s OP then we would have just 1 rank per tier, all ships in that rank, just different bonuses (imagine a long vertical line of ships list for each tier, just one rank per tier and different stats and bonuses, but a horizontal progression like now).
I see Jasan’s point of view as well: as soon as people have the max rank ship available they will forget all about the lower rank one. True, but since it all has to do with progression, it would probably work Evil’s way for now at least.
Another thing i spotted is that of the current bonuses, which is probably (and only partially) the only sort of good thing in the ship tree i tend to approve of right now:
For example look at the R8 and 9 jeri ECM bonuses as the current ship list. R8 makes the better team ship with ECM buffs, while the R9 makes the better soloing ship with gunnery buffs, giving you a straight choice.
Still, when i’m looking at Empire where the specific fighter type is the gunship and see the max rank as a command ship in T3… i’m like ‘wtf is this?’
Additional thoughts or suggestions?
About only 1 faction’s ships active at once and Jeri having no engis:
Will all the players HAVE to have the same faction’s ships? Or this is limited per player or a team can also be comprised of another faction’s ships as well?
If all the players must belong to the same faction, i’d probably make jeri ships tankier? Dunno, this part is confusing and only direct testing will balance them imo.
Additional thoughts or suggestions here as well?
Except for these parts i talked about, i agree with the OP, +1.
Hopefully Jasan will put up one for 0.9.2 as well. I believe this is supposed to be weapons and the suchalike?
Hopefully Jasan will put up one for 0.9.2 as well. I believe this is supposed to be weapons and the suchalike?
To be honest, I don’t really see a need to go into weapons.
Pre-0.9.0, as far as I was concerned, there were four weapons in the game; the RFR was for Interceptors and Gunships, Stab Rails were for everything else, and Assault plasma / heavy laser was for when I needed kills with plasma/lasers to complete a contract.
Now…
Interceptors: Shrapnel Cannon (or plasma if completing a contract).
Fighters: Assault Railguns.
Frigates: Coil Mortar (or lasers if completing a contract).
I really don’t see any need to use anything but railguns. Railguns are just the best weapons for everything.
Moreover, I actually agree with the developers on the weapons front. Listening to people xxxxx that their CovOps can’t have Stab Rails anymore is like complaining that the Spy in TF2 can’t have a Sniper Rifle. Interceptors are meant to be up close and personal, so their guns reflect that. Even then the bloody plasma gun can clock around 4km range in Tier 1 / 2 if you use the R2 Fed Implant. So… what exactly is the problem?
I do believe some of the weapons should change a bit. I do not like the fact the Heavy Blaster has slow barrels, and I think the Signularity Cannon probably should have them instead, but that’s about it. Two weapons that need minor tweaks. Coil Mortar would have been on the list but I actually got my way on that - I said their range should be about 3,500m with the R2 Fed Implant, and it’s actually now 4,020m with the implant.
Maybe the Sing Cannon needs rebalancing, but to be honest I rarely see them now so it’s hard to pass judgement.
To be honest, I don’t really see a need to go into weapons.
Pre-0.9.0, as far as I was concerned, there were four weapons in the game; the RFR was for Interceptors and Gunships, Stab Rails were for everything else, and Assault plasma / heavy laser was for when I needed kills with plasma/lasers to complete a contract.
Now…
Interceptors: Shrapnel Cannon (or plasma if completing a contract).
Fighters: Assault Railguns.
Frigates: Coil Mortar (or lasers if completing a contract).
I really don’t see any need to use anything but railguns. Railguns are just the best weapons for everything.
Moreover, I actually agree with the developers on the weapons front. Listening to people xxxxx that their CovOps can’t have Stab Rails anymore is like complaining that the Spy in TF2 can’t have a Sniper Rifle. Interceptors are meant to be up close and personal, so their guns reflect that. Even then the bloody plasma gun can clock around 4km range in Tier 1 / 2 if you use the R2 Fed Implant. So… what exactly is the problem?
I do believe some of the weapons should change a bit. I do not like the fact the Heavy Blaster has slow barrels, and I think the Signularity Cannon probably should have them instead, but that’s about it. Two weapons that need minor tweaks. Coil Mortar would have been on the list but I actually got my way on that - I said their range should be about 3,500m with the R2 Fed Implant, and it’s actually now 4,020m with the implant.
Maybe the Sing Cannon needs rebalancing, but to be honest I rarely see them now so it’s hard to pass judgement.
I was thinking more along the lines of additional weapons. Many more. And broadening the choice of the Tier One players. Forcing you to play assault rails is bad and the developers should feel bad!
I can give you a better idea on a PM.
EDIT: Railguns being the best for everything just shows they failed to complete a key goal:
players will be able to experiment and be equally effective with all kinds of weapons!
Which apparently we aren’t. Rails need bringing on par with plasma and laser weaponry, or the latter being powered up. Plus, 2 more weapons per class are needed.
http://i.imgur.com/y021rMN.jpg
This has been the core of 90% of the patches in this game, so far.
What we want is woefully ignored while the devs are forced to swallow our flames and keep typing out what they planned out and was approved for each patch and timeline. All we can do is wait for the release and hope they can focus on some of the issues that have risen.
Diversity for the sake of diversity produces a CoD syndrome situation; a game with dozens, if not hundreds of weapons that are little more than reskinned versions of each other.
Consider the great FPS deathmatch games of old; the Dooms, the Quakes and so on. Compare how many weapons they have with how many weapon types they have, and the ratio is often close to 1:1.
Modern games give you five pistols, eighteen assault rifles, four sniper rifles, three LMGs and a suitcase full of submachine guns. Doom? One pistol, two shotguns, a machinegun, an assault rifle, a rocket launcher and the Big xxxx Gun, which defies categorisation because it puts main tank armaments to shame.
Yet Doom is arguably a far superior shooter experience because of this lack of variation. Bar the pistol, which is just there to get you by until you find a real gun, every weapon has a purpose. The chaingun is for mowing weak stuff down, the plasma rifle for bigger baddies. Rockets are for big mobs or tight packed hordes. The shotgun is an astoundingly versatile all-rounder, with the Super-Shotgun being ungodly powerful point blank but having little-to-no mid-range value.
What more does Doom need weapon wise? The answer is… nothing. There really isn’t much you could put into the game that would just be trying to fill a niche something else already filled.
This is how I feel about Star Conflict’s weapons. What else could they give us? What niche or role is truly missing? Do we really need a plasma gun that shoots thermal? Do we really need a Heavy Laser that does kinetic damage? If anything, we still have too many weapons; I’m sure every gun out there has its fans, but most matches are dominated by certain weapon types almost to the exclusion of all others.
As to the notion of “nerf the railguns”, that isn’t going to help anything.
Railgun dominance is born of meta. In T1 / T2 I am seeing a serious lack of engineers, meaning ships struggle to restore lost hull points. Moreover, T1 engineers can’t heal hull anyway, and from T2 onwards you really want to be using all your slots for class-specific abilities, not personal health restoration. As a result, railguns are king of the metagame; stripping shields is all well and good, but they can come back. Punch holes in hull, and that damage will stay.
That’s just my theory anyway.
4 per class is too restricting, IMO.
I hope I don’t seem… Brusque is the best word, but before you could pick from 12 different weapons. On a class basis, the weapons are fundamentally different. And I was thinking more along the lines of shuffling current weapons around and introducing new ones that have different mechanics. I did have an idea for an unguided missile launcher with vastly reduced damage and the ability to create a ‘volley’ the longer you held the LMB down, but I’m still working on it. Not sure what damage type it could be.
ONE DAY HEAVY BLASTER WILL RULLZ TEH GALAXY !
Jasan and others are echoing each other’s thoughts so there must be truth in that.
I find nothing to disagree on the above post in-fact … other than
Interceptors: Shrapnel Cannon (or plasma if completing a contract).
Fighters: Assault Railguns.
Frigates: Coil Mortar (or lasers if completing a contract).
I really don’t see any need to use anything but railguns. Railguns are just the best weapons for everything.
which reminded me when you first RE-discovered Heavy Lazors 
weapon balancing is a funny thing. i dabbled with it at one point years ago and a weird thing the team discovered was that you could make it perfectly balanced (read: identical on attributes but differed in mechanics) and when it gets to the user’s hands one can be extremely OP against the other.
it’s just weird. and we came to the conclusion that there needed to be a ‘human factor’ element in weapon balancing. chiefly = aptitude
some people are predisposed to one kind of shooting mechanic and not with another.
take the sniper, shotgun, submachinegun
you could give them the exact same damage output on the same effective range
yet certain players will perform significantly better on one type of gun and fail on another. it’s the human factor
everyone is wired slightly differently when it comes to shooting.
here is my list of prefered weapon loadout per class
Jasan Interceptor = Shrapnel
Kine Interceptor = Plasma Gun
Jasan Fighter = Assault Rails
Kine Fighter = Assault Rails
Jasan Frigate = Coil Mortar
Kine Frigate = Assault Laser
out of 6 guns, we only have 2 in common. And it isn’t DPS or efficiency etc. It’s chiefly preference. I fly in a certain way and need certain guns to complement it. And since we fly different, we fit differently.
As for kinetic damage meta … I blame synergy and the need to kill to progress.
And since you need kinetic to claim kills it will be the preferred damage of choice
I like your take on less is more.
For fighters: Ion has no niche it can logically fill. Then again it could be there to serve the preference function
Here’s the situation as I see it with current weapons:
Fighter: Gauss = Anti-interceptor
Fighter: Singularity = Anti-Frigate (ignore not having slow turrets is killing other stuff, assuming it’ll be fixed tomorrow)
Fighter: Assault Rails = Strong Multi-Purpose
Fighter: Ion = Weal Multi-Purpose
– Ion here could do with a change. I’m thinking a thermal damage coil mortal for fighters but there are a few pilots who would swear by the Ion, Astraal is one of them IIRC … dunno why lol –
Frigate: Positron = Anti-Interceptor
Frigate: Coil Mortar = Anti-Frigate
Frigate: Assault Laser = Medium Muti-Purpose
Frigate: Heavy Blaster = Weak Anti-Something I Dont Know What LOL
– HBlasters here has a kikass mechanic. I love it but it does nothing meaningful. A buff would help. removing slow barrel maybe? –
Interceptor: Shrapnel = Kinetic Shotgun, Strong
Interceptor: Plasma Gun = EM submachinegun, Medium
Interceptor: Laser = Thermal Pistol. Medium
Interceptor: RFBlaster = EM Knife, Weak LoL?
Interceptor weapons could really use thinking over. It doesn’t fit the theme as the other 2 classes. You could argue all their weapons are geared for Anti-Fighters and none of the other classes have weapons specific for that but still … it’s kinda meh in from my POV
apart from the thematic deviation it also suffers indirectly from the now WTF’d role reversals we see in terms of rock-paper-shotgun. Until that is fixed, I find it difficult to assess Interceptor weapons and it’s viability. But since all of them are F’ked, relatively it’s still A-OK in a twisted kinda way.
Haven’t put much headtime thinking it over but if someone could think why Inty weapons are meh and how to add diversity and fun into it - the game could really use it. Right now, inties are pretty much cookie cutter no matter what weapon you strap on. (blatantly ignoring the damage type considerations but in terms of playstyle, it don’t deviate much from one gun to the other)