Explanation of the great grand rebalance from Paul Preece, founder of KIXEYE

  • CivilBore
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined May 2014 Posts: 471
    DoisReis said:
    I haven't taken the time to read all the responses...and I mean this with the utmost respect, but you sir, are an idiot. To summarize what you told us, our position is justifiably outraged because, yes, you are creating a new game out of vega conflict parts.

    Am I missing something?

    Well, have fun with an unproven game dynamic at the expense of all of the "old pc" players time and money.

    I'd say more...but I've wasted enough of my precious time.

    If you left a job, then returned to the same job a little while later, you'd spread the hate too. "I returned to the game as Creative Director back in August" and was so upset at the demotion / return to something I hated, I decided to take it out on the players.
    Coineye, putting the con in conflict
  • Dan_F135
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Sep 2013 Posts: 164
    well what i clearly make out of this, is "thanks all you end game pc players, but mobile is everything now, and we are moving on without you". i am sure they have all ready figured out a great majority of us older players will leave, and have decided it is acceptable losses to them.
  • V e s p o
    V e s p o
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Jun 2015 Posts: 1,839

    @V e s p o said:
    If the goal is to attract players that aren't already playing the game and retain them, you need an ad campaign with a well endowed spokesmodel (i.e. GOW:FA)- and you need a satisfied existing player base to be your word of mouth, and the people that guide new players to success.

    You have no ad campaign, no well endowed spokesmodel, and you've alienated the folks that can generate word of mouth and teach new players how to survive long term.

    Mission not accomplished.

    So true.
    And i know what i will tell to my friends.

    And for the record- I play almost exclusively on mobile- usually on a tablet. There are challenges, but not insurmountable ones- ease of misclicks in combat is an issue- and when the network is laggy, the touch controls do not respond consistantly, however, these are not dealbreakers. I improvise, adapt, and overcome. These are problems that will never entirely go away. PC players have an advantage in that they can kite more effectively and with more precision- I do not begrudge them that.

    BUT- we all hate basically being out of the game for a day after 10-15 minutes of serious combat, unless we break out the instant-repair fleets which will no longer be instant repair. The biggest impediment to more gameplay is that "Pay up or sit out" factor. Address it. You'll get exponentially more transactions if you ask for lower amounts. Seriously- $10 (or more) to get back in the fight for another 5 minutes? I can drive to the nearest arcade (yes, some still exist) and get more value dropping a few quarters into an old school game machine.
  • bluebird01
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jan 2013 Posts: 520
    If the rebalance wasn't happening I would be spending 100$ on the corinthian deal tonight. But I won't be and today or atleast this month will probably be my last day/month of playing it unless they stop these speed changes.


  • duane.farthing
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Nov 2013 Posts: 149
    Just an arrogant **** trying to sell you a crap sandwich
  • vicky- lil mis click
    vicky- lil mis click
    Joined Jun 2015 Posts: 15
    @CM LXC

    So when does the letter come out that actually addresses our concerns as players?
  • CM77
    Joined Jun 2015 Posts: 7

    Ok I am going to show you a few things:

    Paul Preece said:

    "you guys (and gals) are pretty unique. Out of the millions of people who have played VC, it really connected with a small, select subgroup of those people (you) who really enjoyed playing VC day after day, month after month."

    We are a small group to them we do not matter, they do no see a benefit in keeping us happy, we small subgroup that keapt paying them real money and their game alive are worthless, just read it he is saying it

    "The majority of people didn’t find what they were looking for in VC and simply stopped playing. For those people, VC failed. It failed to be fun. It failed to be engaging day after day.


    And there lies the catch-22. Some of the aspects of the game that appeal to the current player base are the exact same aspects that frustrate or overload new players. To improve the experience for new players, and to grow VC, we have to alter the game to make it more attractive to new players. Sometimes, after considering all other options, this includes altering the game in a way that frustrates the current player base.

    There we go, we small subgroup like a complex game full of diversity were knowing how to fly and strategize is important, but they assume the masses will come in droves for a dummied down game were you have instant ship smashes with no flying and building strategies, just quick si ple game you just pay to win

    We do not want you thinking that you are not important to us. Long time players are the lifeblood of the game. In many ways you are the game. However for VC to grow and entertain a new generation of players it must change and adapt. Ultimately we feel the result is worth the effort.

    A very contradicting paragraph, ither we "are the game" or we are a small subgroup, no sir we are not important to you, you have ignored us completely you do whant to grow your game and your profits, this is not a bad thing you are not a charity, but don't lie to us be honest we dont mater you are making this a diferent game beacose only a small subgroup was playing it.

    The game is getting more simple with regards to ship speeds, that is true. However there are different kinds of complexity. Speed is a very important stat. So important that it can override nearly all other stats except for Range. When that happens the game actually loses a ton of complexity, as the number of meaningful combat stats drops from many to few. Bringing more consistency to hull speeds should return more complexity than it takes as the number of meaningful stats increases. Over time, we expect more hull classes to become useful to more players.

    Again you contradict yourself in the same paragraph, ither irs getting simpler (dummied down), or there is complexity, you promises that will come in the future, you sold me hulls like the Dread and Eagle and now change them to loose the atributes that made them dominant in their classes and say ISC hulls are supposed to be end game so others must be made to fit under them, you dont keep your promises I don't believe you period.

    This specific set of changes will most likely lose us money in the short term. We know we’ve lost the confidence of players by moving the goalposts and it will take time to rebuild it. None of the changes are designed to make money, they are designed to improve the accessibility of the game by better defining the meta.

    Ho come on, jibirish and lies, of course making it more accesible to a larger player base is i lew of profits, we are not stupid, I said it before, its not bad that you whant to make money you are a bussines, but laying to us is wrong, and you said it we are a small subgroup, we dont matter to you, our money is not enough just say it be honest for once.

    How can I feel safe investing time/money into the game when you can just change everything in a heartbeat?

    We decided the best approach was to get all the disruptive changes out in one go. To just rip the band-aid off. More disruptive in the short term but it sets us up to be more consistent in the longer term. One of our key goals for the future is to increase the longevity of ship builds across all classes. It is vital to the health of the game that ships have long, useful lives.

    You did not answer the question, We payed you money for hulls that we liked beacose they out performed others, you now take those things away making them 2nd or 3rd teat hull and make your current 3rd reat ISC hulls the end game hulls, you decived and defrauded us, and by not answering the question you give me less reasons to trust you.

    LXC: Ok, this was Scarlett. Credit where it's due. Based on currently available information, it appears that several fleet repair times will actually be going up (https://www.kixeye.com/forum/discussion/617254). Is there something we’re missing?

    The hull repair change will significantly shift the meta of ship design towards lower armor, high damage ships. As it does ship repair times will fall. We are planning on providing some assistance to players to help them adjust their equipment to the new meta.

    In the examples linked to above many of the ships have traded weaponry for armor and shields, which is the current meta. Those ships should now downgrade their shields and armor and take more weapons. As they do their repair times will drop. We will be monitoring builds to make sure this happens.

    Ok this is just stupid, of course if I downgrade armour I will have less repair time, also I will be reparing a destroyed fleet not a victorius one, Your changes do not benifit repair times at all, In fact if now I whant to win I have useless shields, cant outrun and outfly my oponent, we both have huge weapons, if I whant to win I have to use bigger armour and that with the biger mass of fleets means more repair time

    Note, the ISC / Cruiser Armor bonus is ‘repair free’. An ISC ship with a 30% Armor bonus is not charged repair for the additional armor points.

    Note or Add? And your add just contradicts your previus statement beacose armour is important and thats why now your ISC hulls (crap now) are being pomoted now, you know they were unpopular now you will make us invest time and money in developing them, and you will do this again in tge futer and defraud us again. You canot talk yourself out if this just admit, you are not making as much money as you like so you are rebooting the game to something very diferent.

    I would tell you to just clone VC and make your update a second game, compair wich one is here after 2 years, you make money on both, and wont make us small subgroup feal cheated.

  • Duke of Dukes
    Duke of Dukes
    Potential Threat
    Joined Dec 2013 Posts: 68
    Dan_F135 said:
    well what i clearly make out of this, is "thanks all you end game pc players, but mobile is everything now, and we are moving on without you". i am sure they have all ready figured out a great majority of us older players will leave, and have decided it is acceptable losses to them.

    Yeah they think this game can be standalone on the Mobile Market.  Kudos if they are right, but I really doubt it and that's when the OH *#&$ moment will happen for them.  The top management won't care.  I've posted this before.  This Kixeye guy (link below) blew up his former company, but got another job at KIX, so you know their ideas are solid lol.  They will just move on to the next company to ruin for the sake of trying to maximize profits in the shortest period of time possible. 


    Potential Threat
    Joined Mar 2014 Posts: 38
    changing the game up to benefit new players, i.e. the chinese, that have spent more money in the short-term
  • Dayspring329
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Apr 2012 Posts: 670
    edited 9 Mar 2016, 3:28PM
    I've just read the majority of the posts here and never before have I heard the community pour its heart out more. However I honestly dont think it will do much good stopping the update. However, I have 182 ships! All will need refitting in someway shape or form. Not once have I coined a ship built. Just ran my ship bay for 4 years straight. Imagine how many some of the coiners have. How long will those take to refit?? Give us all one free refit per ship. You won't lose any money over it. Because we wouldn't fly them til they are changed. The faster you get us flying the faster we coin repair. Its your call. While I'm waiting to refit and cant play Im checking out all the other games in Steam thinking why am I playing Vega again?

    photo forumbanner-2.jpg
  • CivilBore
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined May 2014 Posts: 471
    edited 9 Mar 2016, 3:32PM
    Questions: It's been shown in another thread, which you state you will have read, that repair times will go up for the majority of builds. The one's we were shown by staff will go down - those using Zynth - this implies those who use zynth now will benefit. Those who don't need to start using zynth. However, currently not using zynth keeps the repair time low, adding it just increases repair time. How do the changes affect anyone not using zynth armour, at the present time. Does repair time go up or down?  - please provide multiple examples from ranc auto fleets through mid level venoms, to the high tier fleets. - I'm guessing less than 1% of the game base gets better off.

    Given the builds we were shown, I'm guessing the majority of fleets will see their repair time go up, unless they were already using zynth. How this increases the potential for pvp battles, and god forbid 'showdown' ever gets implemented, is a complete mystery. How do you see pvp becoming the new big thing when overall repair times go up? How do you see new players enjoying the game when their mediocre fleets take an hour to repair?

    You returned in August, When do you plan to leave again?

    I won't hold my breath for any answers to these questions. Likely your answers will be directed to more important issues like the colour scheme of ships changing.
    Coineye, putting the con in conflict
  • fadedtheoryyy
    Potential Threat
    Joined Mar 2013 Posts: 57

    @Yevaud said:
    Paul, firstly thanks for your comments. However, there are some things that just dont quite fit with what you are saying.

    You state that the new meta is higher damage but lower armour builds that will have lower repair time...... but this really does not seem to be the case.

    The ISC ships that you mention do have an armour health bonus yes, but they also trade a reduced number of weapon slots for more armour slots and are clearly intended now as the top tier ships. So far from encouraging higher dps lower armour builds these encourage higher armour lower dps builds at the top level.

    Secondly the fact that all armours now have the same repair cost per health encourages the use of Z armour as soon as you have it. This can of course bee seen as freeing up mass for the same health to spend on guns.... but it also negates the value of those extra ISC armour slots which could previously be used fro providing the same health at a much lower repair cost.  Again the rellity here seems to contradict your stated goals.

    How does reducing the effectiveness and strength of shields fit in here. Hmm, no I cant see that it does.

    Finaly we have the much heralded FB11. Well this ecnourages much larger more powerfull fleets which in turn have a much higher repair time.  You can say that we should build glass cannon fleets with little armour but in truth in order to compete in pvp it will be necessary to max out that mass and repair times per battle will not go down.

    I appreciate that on mobile where micro management and control of groups is much harder (hint allow more zoom would help) the fact that ships of the same class have differnt speeds makes control harder, so I can sort of see that even if i dont like it. A repair time (and build time) change is needed. But overall i do not feel that you have achieved your stated goals. Time will tell but I am pessimistic and feel that you these changes are in danger of backfiring on you in a spectacular fashion.  A case in point here is that it will now be much harder for new players to really get into the game and progress, because it will be much longer before they can build effective farming fleets for 27-45 vega and vsec fleets which dont require a lot of repair. The high bar to making progress already turns away many new players within a week or two... I think you may have just made it harder still to grow the player base.

    Sparrow Hawk 64

    How can i like more than once, man u just said what half of vc players would have had tk say

  • SkyBuster
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Jul 2015 Posts: 2,973

    The only real difference between Rebel, Vega and Vsec ships are available mass, some base health and empty ship mass. Most slots are the exact same.
    While ISC ships get a free health bonus I'd like to have something similar on Vega and Vsec hulls, e.g. a shield capacity increase that won't count towards repair time on vega hulls and a weapon damage bonus added to vsec hulls.

    On MK IV Vega ships will have enough mass to use 42k tonnes to its full content. With them being easier to mark up and having lower build times while vsec is harder to upgrade and builds longer, vsec hulls offer almost no real advantage over vega.
    Zeal has a litte less empty ship mass and lance gets a 3rd weapon slot.. but that basically is it (which won't make zeal that much better than dread).
    There is no reason to differ between Apoc and Corinthian at all... and, well.. still no reasons to really build frigates at all.
    Also, at least make carriers fly by 220 rear speed.
    This will keep ragnarok alive and won't make them flying bricks.

  • jgody
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined May 2015 Posts: 292

    Its a sad day for vega been playing 11 months got every hull expect rapture an valhalla an heretic my hard work an money spent all for nothing im dusting off my playstation 4 which I hardly played because I was playing vc alot no more online games for me if they dont suck now they will suck later most of these online games is die out because decisions like what kix are making vc will just be a old memory my advice to players is to stick to home game consoles no amount of discussion is going to stop kix from doing their update

  • g.margrin
    Joined May 2015 Posts: 21
    more weapons and less shield, so soon broken vessel, to take the war we will have spent more money. Each one for large vessel of us have spent a lot of time and money to win this difference in speed and mass to ultimately lose because of new players who are not happy. I just noticed that have lost a lot of time for nothing. any update of these days shows that they spent more money for less strong fleet event every weekend, VSEC every two hours, while to lose the most ship. As against the construction time does not change its
  • Jumble1
    Potential Threat
    Joined Jan 2015 Posts: 86
    The shift will be from fast hulls to long range hulls. With paper thin armor on every fleet, battles will be determined based on who shoots first.
  • cornpuff
    Potential Threat
    Joined Jul 2015 Posts: 52
    heff216 said:
    Mr. Preece,

    I play on mobile, and the issue/ frustration with the game had more to do with control/ fleet movement commands and high punishment in general for mistakes/ disconnects, too much grinding in general and less to do with the factors addressed in the rebalance.  I am sorry to say, but I agree with your general assessment that confidence in your product has been fundamentally eroded.  

    I am changing from a frequent purchaser of coins to a non purchaser simply because these actions have made me acutely aware that you are willing to de-value my time and purchases through changes of your product whenever developers see fit.  I finally have fleets that can complete events at a medium to high level without all the high grinding times with auto fleets.  This option is gone; you changed my product that I worked for and purchased and now it cannot do what I paid for.  I would not have invested time any money into this product had I known you were going to change it.  Your company knew this change was happening and instead of informing the consumer you waited and then made changes that you knew were in benefit of other things.  Let be honest, everyone is using the time/money resource to purchase a non-real thing.  We all secretly feel guilty for it.  You have made us feel like fools for ever investing when you make sweeping changes without telling us.  For you it was ripping the band-aid off.  For us who had no idea what you were doing, it was like stabbing us in the back.  

    The relationship between consumer and producer is based fundamentally on trust.  At the end of the day, the action you and your company did can only make sense from the standpoint of attempting to make the most money before this change so that you could offset the lost of players making future purchases.  I know I purchased things to get the Rag and the Dread for the hope that I would finally have a fleet that could consistently hit higher level Vsec.  Your company put out deals for these things knowing you would later lower its value.  I understand the terms of service, but doesn't that feel fundamentally dishonest?  If you put your time into something that the other party knew they were going to de-value, wouldn't you feel cheated?

    You hope that overall the changes will be viewed favorably so that new players can enjoy your product. Maybe you have some metric where you determined you can no longer extract value from long time players.  The problem with this logic, is your base as eroded.  As a newer player, older players helped to keep me invested in the game with their experience and the general concept that their is a light at the end of the tunnel.  Without that, I too would have quit this long ago.  If the goal post keeps moving, there is no light, just changes to the base parameters to make more money.  You could have made VSec the best fleet, you didn't because you thought you could extract more if you made the worst ships better.  Save on development cost, save on producing new product.  Some new guy can't lean on Kixeye to show them the ropes and make this game enjoyable, the forum and the players did that.  There has to be a way to meet your overall objectives and still make the player base happy.

    I will continue to enjoy your game to the best I possibly can, but until you re-establish trust, I would be foolish to invest money into this game.  Maybe you can recoup the difference on new players, but i just can't see myself putting all the previous effort in again when you could change things in a month.

    Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
    Agree.  I feel duped by making purchase (mk upgrades to dread and rag) based on parameters that I had no knowledge would change, yet Kixeye did.  I won't be spending a dime (on any of my chars) until trust is re-established.
  • d.dodgers
    Potential Threat
    Joined May 2014 Posts: 37
    farcaster said:
    I'd also like to know what kind of research you did to determine this is why new players quit?  I did recruiting for an alliance for a long time and I can tell you (a long with a lot of players here) that the reasons they left the game was overwhelmingly to do with the long build and repair times.  After that it was the game being steered more and more towards the coin to win direction.  No one left because they felt certain types of ships were faster then the other or anything at all with ship classes.   
    Every ex-player I've ever met had the same two complaints. Build times too long and pay to win.
  • mason.dixen
    Master Tactician
    Joined Oct 2013 Posts: 2,156
    V e s p o said:
    V e s p o said:
    If the goal is to attract players that aren't already playing the game and retain them, you need an ad campaign with a well endowed spokesmodel (i.e. GOW:FA)- and you need a satisfied existing player base to be your word of mouth, and the people that guide new players to success.

    You have no ad campaign, no well endowed spokesmodel, and you've alienated the folks that can generate word of mouth and teach new players how to survive long term.

    Mission *not* accomplished.
    Just to qualify the power of word of mouth... I came over to Vega Conflict along with a large group of players that all knew each other from another game. I never saw a single advertisement for Vega. I doubt the majority of us did- what hooked us in was people talking about it, then trying it out, and telling the rest of us how promising it looked. That chain of events probably got you somewhere around 300 players in one shot- several of whom coin on a regular basis, and many more who coin occasionally.  I've been involved with online games almost since they first came into existence, beta tested a few, and at one time was very close with some of the developers-

    the thing that really pulls people in, and retains them is the COMMUNITY- far more so than the content and the mechanics. Many people can accept (even if they complain) an imperfect game (what game is perfect?) if there is a strong community that they feel like they can be a part of. The goal should be to develop the community, give it things to work for, ways to cooperate and/or battle amongst themselves, and mechanisms that encourage new players to be a part of it- that's where content and game mechanics come into play. That was critically important for the age of subscription based game business models- and even more important for the new era of microtransactions.

    There is a fine line to walk- you want people spending money, but when you force them to spend large amounts of money to get anywhere in the game, they will question the value they are getting for their dollar. That is what's happening now- many people have spent a great deal of money on the game, and even those who have spent small amounts are beginning to wonder- after all, this is a GAME, not a mortgage, not groceries, not a utility bill- it is going to be low on the priority list- so when you really try to soak people constantly, they will devalue it in a heartbeat when push comes to shove.

    The key part of the update is the de-emphasis on shields- they will be weaker and have a bigger cost of ownership through repair time (time is the cost when money is not used). So the one thing that protects players from spending excessive time/money between battles has been made less effective. This also creates a strikingly increased reliance on more armor in order to survive win fights- more armor = more time/money spent between battles.

    You know that you can only ask players to shell out so much before they hit their breaking point- and if they have to spend too much time instead between battles, the game becomes unenjoyable because you'll spend more time waiting for repairs than actually playing.

    Now the update does reduce average repair times, at least at the higher end of the spectrum, however, it INCREASES repair times at the lower end- where it has a huge impact on playability for those new players - the very players you are most concerned with retaining. This effectively extends the awkward teenage years into a much longer and painful grind- the very thing that frustrates and alienates new players.

    Now the overall changes have clearly alienated the existing player base (I don't think I need to rehash why)- and you've increased the most frustrating thing for new players ("what do you mean I either have to pay up or sit out of the game for a few days!?!?!?!?")- and the new players now see frustrated and angry existing players as well- so what incentive do they have now to keep at it?

    Mobile versus PC challenges are tricky- but they are merely a technical challenge that can be worked with. The community challenge of maintaining a healthy community is where you can make big mistakes that can cost you the game no matter how technically slick and perfect it is.

    If you want a better game, don't nerf it, don't drastically rip and replace it. Invest in it. Invest in the community, Invest in promoting it, invest in incentives for good word of mouth, and improve the goals/objectives of the game first, then worry about fixing the mechanical stuff.  I think there was a big expectation that this update would help PvP action become the centerpiece of the game rather than a sideshow- that's done by realigning the goals/objectives and advancement methods within the game to PvP rather than incessant farming. I think if you addressed that problem, the player base would be more open to other changes (though not all at once in a traumatic fashion that devalues the investments *WE* have already made into the game).

    We've all invested a lot of our time and money into this game and it's community, we only ask that you do the same, and remember that investing in the COMMUNITY is the more important part of that equation. Who cares how good/bad the game is if no one is encouraging people to play it and invest their time and money into it.

    Well put.  No wonder Elite Dangerous developers are able to pouch so many VC players.  Worst of all, its not a ad campaign, its the community that is migrating.  See Stream player stats  below
    "Forged in the flames of the original 8k wars"
    "Participant in the Jova Crusades; the winning side"
    "I hate cargo fleets.  What else do you want me to say"
    "I attacked you because you stole my piece of cheesecake with cherry toppings."
    "The government has ordered me to harvest this farm.  Please be patient as your base is harvested."
    IGN: MasonD
    ~Condolences to all who share a similar name - there can only be one.
  • B4ck5t0n3
    Potential Threat
    Joined Aug 2015 Posts: 99

    Balengoran, the Fleetbay 11 was added solely as a consolation for the endgamers. The thought is that if they give extra mass to them (endgamers) it will allow as you say, huge amount of armor for those willing to stomach the rep to come away with a victory. As I give the current situation more thought, with the changes, I can still possibly play the game but I will strictly be a snipe baser. That part of the game (which is actually my favorite part) is somewhat preserved it appears, even with the shield/armor changes. I have zero interest in fvf going forward.

  • Jonnyd1
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Nov 2013 Posts: 108

    Well he talks about the longterm future and I know what my longterm future is not to spend another penny on this game. You talk about mobile Base players and they are even trying to sell their accounts due to this update I can only imagine what reviews they are giving it on Google and ios. Maybe research into things 1st before going through with them

  • vsop59
    Potential Threat
    Joined Oct 2015 Posts: 67
    Well, given the fact Kix did archive the initial "rebalance" threads and our 1000+ comments and the 1st part of "rebalance update" will be deployed in hours, I'm "balancing" back by stopping any account funding and keeping minimum connection time just to achieve ongoing fleets and get the game temperature at times.

    Seriously, guys, such an arrogant, elusive and dismissive profile from Kix staff is certainly not the way to conduct business and they certainly will learn about very soon. Enough heard, I do have another games to play.

    And, oh, Kix, don't forget to archive this very thread as well just after your **** "mobile" update, lol.

  • jorgenarvaez
    Potential Threat
    Joined Jan 2016 Posts: 66

    I could leave a huge post about the **** said in this but it boils down to its BULLSHIT making ISC SHIPS THE BEST IS CLEARLY A JOKE AND A SHOT AT MAKING MORE MONEY

  • Dark Zeus
    Dark Zeus
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Jul 2015 Posts: 276
    edited 9 Mar 2016, 4:05PM
    The hull repair change will significantly shift the meta of ship design towards lower armor, high damage ships. As it does ship repair times will fall. We are planning on providing some assistance to players to help them adjust their equipment to the new meta.

    In the examples linked to above many of the ships have traded weaponry for armor and shields, which is the current meta. Those ships should now downgrade their shields and armor and take more weapons. As they do their repair times will drop. We will be monitoring builds to make sure this happens.

    Note, the ISC / Cruiser Armor bonus is ‘repair free’. An ISC ship with a 30% Armor bonus is not charged repair for the additional armor points.

    First, I appreciate you taking a look at my post but it appears that some of its message was missed.

    1.  You say "traded weaponry for armor and shields" but how??  Everyone one of my ISC examples has High Damage Max weapons.  I simply put the remaining Mass where it would be most effective.  Especially considering the armor bonus of the ISC ships/Cruisers; it would be silly to NOT take advantage of it. 

    2.  It's like you're skipping the fact that the meta WILL be driven by those that want to win.  The Mega coiners in this game care less about repair time than the average player because they simply plan on coining their Max build fleets back. 

    **Especially considering there's NO repair penalty between low level and high level armor now;  they are going to build Maximum Effectiveness fleets like the ones in my post.** 

    **This means that anyone who doesn't build around maximum effectiveness is going to lose.  No one plays a game to lose so even casual players are going to have to shift their fleets closer to Maximum build fleets.**

    Look at this this way.  I could build a high damage fleet and shave off some armor/shields to get fleet repair time around 8-10 hours. 

    Well, being that my Max examples already use Maximum weapons; any one of them will obliterate my reduced armor/shields fleet.  So now, I have 8-10 hours of repairs while my Max fleet opponent is flying away (with maybe even with similar repair time) but over 50% of his fleet health.  So again, people WILL start gravitating to very long repair fleets and PvP activity goes DOWN.

    3.  This is WHY I suggest the more appropriate strategy of giving yourself a goal repair time for Max Fleets.  You already know that the Meta is going to be driven to them so give them a time that still supports fun, active, engaging PvP.  Then people can shave down from that time if they choose. 

    **I, personally, think a max time of anything over 8 hours is a big mistake in a PvP focused game.  To be honest, it should probably be even lower than that but I think 8 hours would be a good starting point for you to test.**
  • Adrian Maldonado96
    Adrian Maldonado96
    Joined May 2015 Posts: 4

    Have you ever gone out drinking with some buddies and had a bunch of fun. Then you wake up, your head hurts and your friends are like, "Oh man last night was so great! Blah blah blah.....Then you took that hot chick home!" Well Vega used to be the hot chick that you told your friends about, now you're just the fat chick that girls bring to the club to make themselves look better and the reason why guys bring Wing Men.....thanks Kix for becoming the Fat Insecure Multi Personality No One Talks About Chick.

  • fozyB
    Joined May 2015 Posts: 1

    I've read through some of this and really have only recently been playing more seriously. I think you are making a mistake.

    This game is not unique, you are competing in a market where new games are coming out everyday for mobile. Why alienate your core group of coiners on the gamble that you can increase profits? If the game is financially sustainable why mess with it, potentially making it worse? You obviously have been mulling this for a while so why offer cash based deals that are of no really value now? Your putting profit ahead of common sense which will fail.

    That's my 2 cents. Will I continue to play? Probably. Will I continue to spend? Probably not as you have now proven you care less about me a customer and are willing to step on me to get a new customer. That just poor service.

  • Matthew Toomb
    Matthew Toomb
    Potential Threat
    Joined May 2015 Posts: 78

    Everything has been said twelve times over... I'll just add:


    The reason why people are so pissed off is because people aren't stupid... They can tell when someone's pissing on their head and telling them it's rain. I don't know if you actually thought this "heartfelt post" was going to smooth things over, but it's been for interesting reading anyway.

    New players want SPACE. They download Vega because because there really aren't that many space games out there, and this one looks good on the outside. HOWEVER: There is not enough SPACE.

    1) MORE sectors, linked together (think Eve Online) where people have the ability to spread out. 2) Fix the Sector View - right now there is an ancient clunky interface for everything, where PvP is boiled down to what random numbered fleet you can hit without it running home to their base. If there was an ACTUAL PvP interface it would be more fun (some kind of matchmaking or dueling system with ANYTHING other than "oh look that fleet is over some arbitrary number, I think I will battle it."). 3) Real time base defense. 4) More singleplayer opportunities. Whether you want to admit it or not, Vega is more than a PvP game. There are AI ships constantly flying around, adding little things like simple missions wouldn't be that hard. Some of us don't like the current "pissed off and crying kids" vs "other pissed off and crying kids" model. 5) Make medals more than just an arbitrary collection of enemies' tears.

    Ok. Maybe I will chime in... I was new once, and I remember realizing that it was a long and tedious grind to the top... And I remember that moment I decided that the climb was worth the challenge. I remember the first time I successfully destroyed a vsec 45 with my Revelations... The feeling of empowerment it gave me. I remember grinding and grinding until I FINALLY got that last Apoc blueprint or that last Echo Ray III piece... All of these milestones add up to more than just a Game Played.. It makes up a kind of virtual life that I've seeded, fed, and grown over the hours and hours and months and months of gameplay.

    And here I am over a year later, all of the gear that I've worked my **** off to get is about to become completely useless.

    Do you really know how that feels? It feels like I devoted hours, weeks, and months, pissed off looks from my wife, and countless weekends spent grinding events all to get a swift KICK IN THE ****. It feels like all that time was just wasted. It feels like I struggled, fought, and FINALLY attained a level to compete with the bullies in the game... And then you guys are going to come in with your magic pieces of code and your "explanations" and make all that work useless. It feels like betrayal, because it is betrayal. It feels like yet ANOTHER greedy company telling me my time is worthless.


    Now instead of pride for the accomplishments I've made in Vega, I just feel ashamed that I've spent so long when I could have been NOT stuck in front of a tiny screen every weekend to make sure I've got the latest gear. I could have played more EVE or GTA... You know, games where the developer isn't actively trying to **** me over.

    I could honestly live with the rest of the changes if you would get rid of these Speed/Strafe/Turn "adjustments". This is a dealbreaker for me. I JUST finished learning how to fly these awesome ships I've finally got, and now you're yanking even that away from me.

  • NackAttack90
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 6

    Seriously, shot in one hand and hope in the other, read these comments people. Nearly every player in the game does not want this rebalance. I also find the free refit for a ship that's overweight insulting, me and and every other high level player has spent hours of time calculating each ship in a fleet to have a specific build and mass for specific strategies, just because some ships might become over massed doesn't fix the fact this will change every "fleet" we have built, KIXEYE should just say it outright what your beating around the bush about KIXEYE does not care what we think in the slightest, or this flood of disarray and nearly universal hate for this rebalance wouldn't be ignored, and it is, this "will" ruin the game and the high level existing players will be spending months on top months fixing entire fleets to adjust to the new stats, thank you kixeye for wasting what we pay for "TIME"

Sign In or Register to comment.