Dev Diary: Season Format Changes

Goldendoodle
Goldendoodle
WC Game Team
Joined Aug 2017 Posts: 98
edited 16 May 2019, 8:03PM

Hello!


Overview

In this post, I will breakdown what our plans are for July, when the current Assault Season ends. Specifically, I will seek to: explain how we are lowering build times, surface the major complaints we’ve received with the current system, explain how we can bring more variety and excitement to Raids, and explain how we plan for the value of your hulls to persist for longer than it does now.


The current system season model has a number of key defining characteristics. These are:

  • 3 month duration

  • 2 hulls, intended to be of equivalent power

  • Raid targets that are entirely one silo (Skirmish, Assault, Siege)


While this system brings some predictability, it’s fundamentally flawed in that it necessarily creates a number of undesirable outcomes:

  • We want ‘completing a full fleet’ to be your season’s goal. However, to make that goal persist for 3 months, build times need to be relatively high. This creates a huge friction point at the first event in the season, where “catching up” is out of reach for most players. This is not an optimal gameplay experience

  • While we endeavor for both hulls to be even in terms of power and utility, a 100% balanced experience hasn’t always been the case. As a result, often one hull is unintentionally more useful than the other. This, too, is not an optimal gameplay experience

  • The targets from top to bottom each raid are extremely similar, designed for the same hulls. Over months, this gets boring

  • After 3 months conclude, the utility  of your hulls falls off a cliff when the Raid silo changes. They become less useful than hulls released a year ago which match the new Raid silo.

  • The relationship between 1 hull and 2 hulls is awkward and unsatisfying. Should you get both? Is it worthwhile? Is it required? None of these questions are enjoyable, and none of the answers are fun.


So how do we fix this? Through a number of initiatives:


  • No more PvE seasons. Silos are staggered, with multiple silos available at any given time;

  • Significantly lower build times on PvE hulls, while increasing the lifespan of a fleet from its current 3+ months of value;

  • Changing the model from 2 equal hulls per silo released, to 1 superior hull and 1 specialized hull per silo.



Build Times

If the top targets persist for a shorter period of time, build times can also be lowered significantly. The goal, however, is for the hulls to still have significant value beyond 3+ months - we believe this is possible. How big a difference in build times are we talking? We’re still doing the math and reductions will vary based on the hull itself. However, the current range we’re discussing is as “low” as a 15% reduction for certain hulls, and as high as a 50% reduction for others.


Uneven Hull Power

By presenting players with two hulls to choose from, you have to pick blindy, not knowing which one will be better. To solve for this, we will present a Primary, and a Supplementary hull in each season. The primary hull will be more powerful and have more use. The Supplementary hull is much more specialized, but has much shorter build times. This way, your investment in hulls is always worthwhile.


Target Diversity

Rather than making all targets in a raid be for a specific silo and rotating them in all at once, we’ll rotate new silo targets in gradually. This allows diverse experiences and challenges in each raid, rather than the same experience repeated 100 times.


Getting Left Behind

In practice, when the season changes over, the S Targets (100+)  become the new silo, but the A Targets (80s) will become the previous silo. This means if you miss an event, you’re not left behind, and the value of your hulls persist for much longer.


How does this look for the near term?

The implementation would look like this:


  • In June:

    • The targets will be Assault

    • the season will end and we’ll have a hull store as usual. In this event, you will be able to get one new Skirmish hull with build times significantly lower than they have been before

  • In July:

    • the top targets will be Skirmish, but Assault targets would remain prominently in the raid

    • supplementary hull will be released. This would be significantly cheaper than the hull released in June, and would serve a specialized purpose

  • In August:

    • Like the previous month, the top targets will be Skirmish, but Assault targets will remain prominently in the raid

    • Siege hull will be released

  • In September:

    • The top targets will be Siege, but Skirmish targets would remain prominently in the raid

    • supplementary hull would be released. This would be significantly cheaper than the hulls released in June and August, and would serve a specialized purpose


Thoughts?

I’d love to hear your feedback. Do you feel this idea would address the concerns you and your friends have about the current season model? What are the advantages this proposal brings? The disadvantages?


  • Top598
    Top598
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined May 2013 Posts: 591

    Hello!


    Firstly kudos for coming to talk to "us" and asking for "our feedback". If none of our feedback is used in the end it at least bridges a communication gap that in the past has been lacking.

    Its a lot to take in so I will read it again. Just a point of clarity please, for July can you confirm what class the "supplementary hull" will be? I would suspect its a second Skirmish hull but just want to be sure.
    No tolerance for idiots
  • Matt_K2020
    Matt_K2020
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 569
    I support the idea. Its not a complete fix, but a great start in the right direction. Thank you for this
  • Alpha__Wolf
    Alpha__Wolf
    Incursion Leader
    Joined May 2015 Posts: 1,070
    I don't mean to speak on Golden's behalf,but I would be very surprised if upgrades go away.

    What I am seeing here is considerably less burden on our shipyards even with upgrades.I hope it all goes very well,and at least 3/4 or more of how I hope it goes.
    TFC Rocks
  • Sputnik001
    Sputnik001
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Jun 2013 Posts: 1,726
    Sounds interesting....

    So the "cycle" now is 2 months rather than 3? for the top targets, so we have 1 month less to get the top fleet up and running?

    I like the idea of having other target types in play as well, why not just do it if all?

    As for doing the same thing over and over again, it will also happen here, targets will not change - I think you are over thinking it too much.

    For definition - silo is new raid cycle? Skirmish/Assault/Siege...why use silo when most if not all call it raid cycle - you are adding confusion.

    The initial concept of thought is good I think, however make the rotation 4 months rather than 2 months REMEMBER players don't want chores, so again they/we will likely be going for the hull that can do the top tier targets - and as by your explanation we would only get 2 months use out of it, rather than the potential 3 months we currently have?

    Having the mixes (various cycle targets) is good, but why not include all cycle type for lower tier targets? so players when they get bored of hitting the higher ones can try different ones for a break.

    I think a question you should be asking is the following:

    Do players want to do chores or do players want to be able to hit targets?

    Breaking that down a little, I know personally I would rather be hitting the same type of targets over and over again (chore) but knowing that I can effectively do that to get points - this would be best over a 4 month cycle period. The players would have enough time to get their fleets up and optimised for the top tier targets, and with what you've done during this cycle - realising new tech throughout and right up to the end - numerous refits having the 4 month cycle would allow SY time to accomodate this somewhat.

    Players complain about chores - always will but from my reading here, players complain more about building times and lack thereof rather than the chores. The FM prime example, having that constant I believe is good, as you state it is a way for players to catch up, but how can they when they are building raid hulls, and then have to build FM hulls as well? Yes prioritise, but how can you? Last raid, the new FM hull was a top level raid prize, you needed a top level raid hull to hopefully get it........having the ID's in the FM is great, the Praetorian can be added there is a month or so, so fellow players can also have access to it, move the ID's down a tier no problem.

    Extra bonus, you wouldn't need to alter build times excessively as time is available.

    Specialised hulls, don't waste your time, they will end up like the generalist hull. It is something that you could better focus your time elsewhere - like lag, variety of targets etc etc etc fixing the app...

    Keep the "2" hull idea, but don't bother about trying to tune the targets for one hull etc, just make the targets the same level of difficulty. What I mean by this is, you could effectively hit the target with either hull and get the same mount of damage. Like the T7 targets, BUT for the T8 level where you have 2 targets set for each hull, have a drop down factor (like you have for lower level targets)

    For example, I have the NemX fleet, I hit the NemX target (102) and get 250k points, for 30mins damage, I then hit the Saturn target (100) and get 125k points for 30 mins damage and then get the bonus.

    I think that this will still encourage players who have the time or ability to go for 2 fleets, but also doesn't penalise those who opt for one fleet through time/ability constraints. 
  • Fraser_H0
    Fraser_H0
    Greenhorn
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 10
    so what your saying is you want people to build a new fleet every month if they want to do S targets..and after that 1 month they are only good for A sets
  • USS_DA302
    USS_DA302
    Potential Threat
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 50
    I approve this message. Very nice to hear. Long time gamer
  • Battle Pirates 2013
    Battle Pirates 2013
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Oct 2013 Posts: 448
    What I find bothersome is that based on this proposed idea the raid cycles are being cut down to 2 months. This means that throughout the course of 1 year we will be having 6 different classes of raids which will require us to build 6 primary and another 6 secondary hulls for these raids. As a result, the tier levels will grow much faster than 1 level per calendar year.

    So now we have 12 hulls we need to build and we also have to fit in the build for the rising tier levels of forsaken missions in addition to those.

    Maybe the build times will be shorter with this proposed model. But the reduction in time will be imposed on us in the added number of hulls to be built. This will also manifest another problem, and that is dock storage space. With the current model it is hard enough to let go of older hulls with the influx of the "to be built" hulls we will be forced to dispose of a lot more hulls to be able to make room for the new ones.

    Please consider the pros and the cons of this proposed model with a lot more care and diligence.
  • david_benware
    david_benware
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Apr 2015 Posts: 151
    Does this mean the to finish a raid targets set (100's, 80,'s, 60's) that you will need multiple fleets because each target in set will require a different Silo of ship?

    Example:
    To complete the 80's set, will it require require:
    80 = Assault Fleet
    83 = Siege Fleet
    85 = Skirmish Fleet


  • jon pirate
    jon pirate
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Jan 2016 Posts: 964
    edited 17 May 2019, 1:06AM
    It is not the hull that is to long it is the refit after refit and the stuff that goes on the hull that takes to long . A raid ship should cap at 10 day's build time with Flag at 15 day's
    Make BP Great Again
  • Cheesy_Shark_Tongue
    Cheesy_Shark_Tongue
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Oct 2012 Posts: 1,914
    So, if I am reading this right, we essentially need to fully build a new fleet every two months.  
    Not much time left for upgrades...still seems a lot of pressure on the shipyard
    Quit Spring 2015 or so, returned Jan 2019.  
    QUOTE by John Stribling. - Who needs Jerry Springer, when u have forums. LMAO
  • kixeyeuser_1388600479319_1249361144
    kixeyeuser_1388600479319_1249361144
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Apr 2015 Posts: 279
    My thought is... what you say COULD be OK... BUT, history shows that while Kix may "give" with one hand they will **** slap you with the other. Reducing build times 15-50% sounds great.. till you realize that we now have to upgrade each individual hull to the tune of a 50%+ build time (most likely on the newest hull that only got a 15% reduction).  So in reality, what you are saying is that nothing is changing except the nomenclature. Sure, each hull has a "reduced" build time... but that is more than eaten up by the upgrades.  You are also saying we still have two hulls. Sooooo..... NOT impressed.
    Upgrade Pirates is not as fun as Battle Pirates
  • Nicholas Davies
    Nicholas Davies
    Potential Threat
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 32
    Does this mean the to finish a raid targets set (100's, 80,'s, 60's) that you will need multiple fleets because each target in set will require a different Silo of ship?

    Example:
    To complete the 80's set, will it require require:
    80 = Assault Fleet
    83 = Siege Fleet
    85 = Skirmish Fleet


    no from how i read it they are saying for 80's/60's sets your to use assault ships but tht is if im reading it right but they are saying also to lock out ur "pve" shipyard and olny allow u to use it to build pve/upgrades (basic coin grab coz will harbin cant get his new cruise ship) however its a good start but some of it is full of old broken promises i.e older players have heard all b4 as i have heard it ages ago but was never implemented its time for them to act upon their word and take some ideas from the "PLAYERS" feedback 
Sign In or Register to comment.