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

  • D Kendall
    D Kendall
    Potential Threat
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 28

    @CM LXC said:
    At the same time as we were launching VC on PC, games were exploding onto a different device entirely: the phone. As VC was our latest and greatest game we decided to create a mobile version of it as our first proper excursion onto the mobile platform. We also decided that the mobile version of VC was not going to be a different game, dumbed down for mobile players, it was (and is) the exact same game as the PC version. Mobile players coexisting and competing with PC players in the same universe. Which is pretty cool and, as far as I’m aware, unique among realtime MMO games.

    And yet now, you are dumbing the whole thing down because of new mobile players. If Clash of Clans can have different units with different speeds/upgraded units and still attract millions, pretty sure it's not the problem. But don't listen to me, a lowly mobile player you claim to champion. Yeah, I play mobile and only mobile, I still think this re-balance is bull.

    Mobile has since gone on to become the largest platform for VC. However, designing and supporting an identical game across platforms that are so different in size, power and accessibility is not without its tradeoffs. Some aspects of the original PC game work well on mobile, some not so much.

    And this is where we catch up to today, or rather five months ago, when KIXEYE started to put some serious thought into addressing the areas of VC that were not working well.

    So what isn't working so well? I know using cellular signal is utterly impossible in battle but that won't be fixed by the changes you proposed/are ramming through today.

    To you, the long time players, the game feels good as it is. It doesn’t feel broken or badly out of shape. You like playing the game - if you didn’t you wouldn’t have continued playing it month after month. And yet here am I saying it needs fixing. Well... we’re both right. As it turns out, 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. 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.

    Perhaps it had more to do with the attitude of higher level players stomping the **** out of some and KIXEYE just shrugging and saying 'tough'. For those that did preserver & grew to become more skilled & gain better hulls, this is a big slap in the face & a reason to not continue.

    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.

    Capital idea, alienate those who earn you money for ones that might possibly come later... maybe. Look, this isn't Candy Crush or Plants vs Zombies, so stop trying to make it that way. It's supposed to take strategy & skill not just random clicking. But apparently, that's what you want & not what I want. So have fun with that. Not sure I'm leaving but it sure isn't something that will help me stay.

    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.

    Bullshit. Stop with this abusive partner crap. You treat us like idiots with explanations that are horseshit and set us back months only to tell us that we are so important to you. Where that the case, the re-balance would not include the speed nerf or some of the mass changes.

    Who in the dev team came up with this? They should be fired/stabbed/[Insert terrible thing here]:

    That would be me. As a huge fan of VC I want to see the game reach the highs I know it can. I returned to the game as Creative Director back in August, and while the current situation is definitely a low point, the features the team are currently working on are some of the most exciting I’ve seen in any of our games.  

    I've got a great idea, perhaps, aborting this abomination of a re-balance could eliminate this "low" you speak of.

    You’re dumbing down the game, I like complexity.

    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.

    Yeah, no. Either it's too complex or it isn't. You're trying to tell me it was too complex & turned people off then tell me it wasn't complex at all. Choose one and stick with it.

    You’re only doing this for the money:

    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.

    Lose money in the short term? You mean until people get used to coining repairs on ships & the mobile noobs coming in know no better. Just a heads up, "increasing accessibility" to me means more players which means more money. So yeah, it's for more money especially since the new system will be built to encourage coining more than before.

    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.

    THEY WERE USEFUL! Really, there is no way to guarantee that you won't upend everything in 6 months. KIXEYE has been less than forthcoming with the truth in the past.

    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.

    What happens if people don't downgrade armor & shields for more weapons?

  • Tholians Web
    Tholians Web
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Nov 2013 Posts: 190
    edited 9 Mar 2016, 1:57PM
    Tuco716 said:
    That phone based players are changing the game is a simple fact, and it needs to be dealt with. Most new players will be mobile, and without the ability of new players to compete, VC, or any game, will die.

    Range and speed are controling? Of course they are. Always have and always will be, both in RL and any gaming platform.


    It is so simple ...PC games and Mobile games will never coexist.
    Speed and Range are the most important battle features of any war game.

    Soon this will be known as Vega Space Derby.

    Kixeye are placing all thier eggs into their basket for the mobile players.
    Hoping within this year they can rebuild a failed rebuilt game with new mobile users.
    Good Luck with that.

    Such a unique game is now a watered down version of any other space game.

    It's time to shelf this game next to Asteroids Missile Command and Defender.


    photo 60069343-480f-4133-8e7b-bcbbc5388989_zpsumjqrgor.png
  • SmokeWs
    SmokeWs
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Jan 2015 Posts: 184

    I am and always have been a user of zynthium armor sense my first revelation cruiser was built. I have never minded the long repair times to allow my ships to stand longer in battle. I will say that my most minimal fleet with zynthium equipped is an 18 hour repair time, my longest fleet is 25 hour repair build. With the new balancing changes I don't see how these repairs time will shrink at all. I have 3 apoc fleets, 3 revelation fleets, 2 dread/rag fleets, 1 zeal/valhalla fleet that were all used for pvp. These fleets if I spent them all in 1 war would take me a week or longer to repair. This is not a good incentive to try to get players to stay in game using high level fleets. You say that the new changes will make this better however with repair times about the same maybe a little less I, as well as anyone else that uses this armor with the added mass of the fleet Bay will still not be in game (PLAYING VC) as you want them to be. No, they will have to find something else to capture there interest while this massively outrageous repairs take place.

    If you want players in game playing having fun and spending coin then you need to CUT all repair/build times in half. Only this will get you the players you need and want.

    Alot of players without a carrier are Unable to do any event to get a carrier without a large amount of coins being spent which to me is not a smart business model if your attempting to keep new players in gauged in the game. Real money should not be needed to keep up with the tech most use in pvp and now you want to make it even more of a kick to the gut by making isc ships the new must have ships when most of us either could not gain them in the events or skipped them due to the massive amount of repair they would have over any other ship in anyone class. This make no sense and make ing a 2 month long event/riot streek isn't the way to go either.

    Everyone on here and in the game chats are against this new vega you want to force on us against everything you community has to say. I for one have already told my alliance that when this update happens I will give them my medals, drop out, and never log back on again.

    So what is your reply to those coiners that won't play anymore if you go through with this update?

  • V e s p o
    V e s p o
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Jun 2015 Posts: 1,839
    edited 9 Mar 2016, 2:06PM
    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.
  • Hallack
    Hallack
    Incursion Leader
    Joined May 2015 Posts: 1,085

    Mr. Preece,

    I truly appreciate that you have taken the time to explain the Kixeye point of view on the changes. I am a relatively new player at approximately ten months in to this game. I joined with a large crowd of fellow mobile players from another game called Galaxy On Fire Alliances. We all liked Vega because it had depth and complexity.

    The people that didn't last left because they didn't have the patience to wait for the builds. Never mind getting the tech, once you have it, there are mo this of wait time to actually get to use it. Build time and refit time are the parts that make this game unattainable. The transaction costs are simply too big for a mass-market game. I always compare it to a Starbucks Cappuccino; if it costs more to repair a fleet than to buy a cappuccino, something is wrong. If you want more players, make the game affordable for more players, instead of the very patient, or those willing or able to spend wads of cash.

    Many of us invested time and most recently money to get the tech to allow us to compete with the heavy hitters in the game. I for one have spent more on this game than on any other game that I have ever played. I feel that by devaluing the ships that I payed to upgrade, you have broken trust. The sale post event are the issue sir, and I feel misused and betrayed.

    It took months of effort and in some cases money to get where I am, and now it feels like I am starting over between refits and new builds. I have gone into this in depth elsewhere, so will not repeat myself here, beyond saying that most of the changes are positive, but some really mean that my money and time were wasted.

    I do hope that you can find a way to moderate the changes a bit to make them more equitable. I feel that it would not take much to get there.

    Tagging @CM LXC as well.

    Best regards,

    Hallack

  • Duke of Dukes
    Duke of Dukes
    Potential Threat
    Joined Dec 2013 Posts: 68

    Got it, you want to try to parlay the success of this game on the PC to mobile as that's the new market.  The only reason you have a chance to do this is the hardcore gamers that made Vega so successful initially.  Your most successful game by far.  AND you think that success can continue on Mobile and that hardcore gamers will just follow you?  LOL!  Dude, even with the update playing this game on Mobile blows.  There are hundreds of space games on Mobile that are easier to play and provide more instant gratification.  You don't have a chance AND you are losing your CORE base on the PC.  You think someone on mobile wants a 10 hour repair time?  Most mobile games are much more sly on when you have to spend money, your competition will own you on a mobile market.  That's why nobody that plays this on mobile only stays to play this game!

    You need to build a new game for mobile that is suited to that style of play (no manual FVF for starters).  Instead you choose to be lazy and try and piggyback on the success of this game had on the PC.  OOPS.  Good luck with your next company, try not to make the same mistakes.  Also I'd like a refund.  Where do I go for that, bankruptcy court?


  • Goat 4 Life
    Goat 4 Life
    Greenhorn
    Joined Jul 2014 Posts: 1
    Still need to stop SPEED CHANGE OR You'll see majority of players quitting, Just saying.
  • zmanm3
    zmanm3
    Potential Threat
    Joined May 2015 Posts: 71

    @CM LXC said:
    Hey rebels,

    Over the last few days, I've been collecting and collating some of your responses to the great rebalance. I promised an explanation from the person in charge of these changes, and here it is. I've rephrased the questions somewhat, but I feel it keeps the original spirit.

    For those of you who don't know who he is, Paul Preece is one of the original founders of KIXEYE, and original creator of Battle Pirates.

    Blue is me, Orange is Paul. What is the point of this change?

    To find the reason for the changes we have to go back in time, to when VC was first created. When KIXEYE first imagined VC it was as a space themed version of a PC game we had previously created called Battle Pirates. It’s not in our DNA to simply clone games, even one of our own, so we purpose built VC from the ground up as a true PC space game. In the process creating a bunch of new features such as combat strafing, hull classes, weapon arcs, planets, moving PvE fleets, interception, wormholes, shields, mines, asteroids and factions. As is often the case when creating new things, some of them work well, some… not so well. We’ll come back to the not-so-well bit in a minute.

    At the same time as we were launching VC on PC, games were exploding onto a different device entirely: the phone. As VC was our latest and greatest game we decided to create a mobile version of it as our first proper excursion onto the mobile platform. We also decided that the mobile version of VC was not going to be a different game, dumbed down for mobile players, it was (and is) the exact same game as the PC version. Mobile players coexisting and competing with PC players in the same universe. Which is pretty cool and, as far as I’m aware, unique among realtime MMO games.

    Mobile has since gone on to become the largest platform for VC. However, designing and supporting an identical game across platforms that are so different in size, power and accessibility is not without its tradeoffs. Some aspects of the original PC game work well on mobile, some not so much.

    And this is where we catch up to today, or rather five months ago, when KIXEYE started to put some serious thought into addressing the areas of VC that were not working well.

    To you, the long time players, the game feels good as it is. It doesn’t feel broken or badly out of shape. You like playing the game - if you didn’t you wouldn’t have continued playing it month after month. And yet here am I saying it needs fixing. Well... we’re both right. As it turns out, 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. 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.

    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.

    Paul Preece

    Founder, KIXEYE

    Who in the dev team came up with this? They should be fired/stabbed/[Insert terrible thing here]:

    That would be me. As a huge fan of VC I want to see the game reach the highs I know it can. I returned to the game as Creative Director back in August, and while the current situation is definitely a low point, the features the team are currently working on are some of the most exciting I’ve seen in any of our games.  

    You’re removing the ships individuality/variety:

    We’re putting together another post to address this in more detail and with more data.

    You’re dumbing down the game, I like complexity.

    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.

    You’re only doing this for the money:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Paul is currently asleep, (and I'll be off shortly), but please leave your comments and questions below, and either he or I will get to them when we can. We read everything, so don't just link your previous forum thread. Remember that this is my bosses bosses boss, so keep it on topic and constructive. 

    Translation: We know that we are alienating and ticking off our long time loyal customers and that they will stop spending money on this game losing us money in the short term, however, we feel we have pretty much gotten all the money we can out of these players and do not care if they leave and never play the game again. What we want are new players to fleece, so we are revamping the game, this is 2 fold, it removes the players that we have already bait and switch, (how much money would the really spend after we screwed them like this anyway) and opens the door for many more new victims, ah.. er.. players to come in and be bilked of their money. Once we have all the money we can get from this new generation of victims, I mean players, we will flip a switch again, make all the ships that they build up worthless and offer victims 3.0 a new set of crappy hulls to build up. It really is a never ending business model where we take a fun and enjoyable game and turn it to crap for those who spent lots of money on it. Oh but wait, to ease the transition we will offer a free refit for all hulls that are over mass, after we raise the mass on most ships that will still be relevant so that they will not qualify for the refit and lower the mass so much on the dread and fury that they will be worthless no matter how you refit them. So in the short term, yes we will lose money, but in the long term, unknowing, unsuspecting people that don’t know what crooks we are will fall victim to our bait and switch tactics and we will make millions.

    Zmanm3

    The Great and Powerful!

  • JAFO-JohnD
    JAFO-JohnD
    Greenhorn
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 19

    I want to believe that the purpose of the rebalance is to make the game function better. It should be faster to determine repair time from a simple math formula than to look up times in a database. It should be more secure to have uniform ship stats, it will discourage hackers who will not be able to find a unique stat they can modify. And there's probably a technical reason for changing the ship mass and shield strength too.

    Like I said, i want to believe this. If kixeye gave an explanation like this, I would have bought it. If a tester came out and said that the rebalance made the game more fun, I would have bought that too.

    This makes me not want to buy anything else from kixeye.

  • Ombj Gaming 2013
    Ombj Gaming 2013
    Potential Threat
    Joined Nov 2013 Posts: 47
    So basically the founder of Kixeye is saying screw all the thousands of existing vega players I want changes and the new players will love it because I say they will.  There is no doubt that these changes will destroy the game and intentionally dumbing down the game is well just stupid as is removing variety that comes with different speeds.  Any change that screws over the existing player base is not a good update and will ultimately prove self destructive. 

    As much as I love this game I suspect these are the last months of the game and yes I know its been said before but never before has the entire community be united against an update like it is now.
    AMEN bro, you said all.
    The MBJ (Retired) Shhh...
    Keep Calm ****.
  • ryansit
    ryansit
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Jun 2015 Posts: 107

    Another nail to the coffin you deleted the thread about the changes and all 1k+ comments

  • paulski21
    paulski21
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Apr 2015 Posts: 183

    @cm lxc , so because you guys won't answer my emails, where do I send the subpoena? Australian office or US? Because in US, my lawyer tells me this is an "Easy bait and switch lawsuit". You sold us **** knowing you were going to kill them once the sales were done. Your boss even said so in the answers.

  • Bryan Braukman11
    Bryan Braukman11
    Greenhorn
    Joined Nov 2015 Posts: 15
    edited 9 Mar 2016, 2:25PM
    at the current state of VC, it will fall and crumble because of the favor of long term players. We abuse and mock the lower lvls and dont give them a chance to grow and enjoy the game as it should. As a end game vega gamer, I would take a fall for the new recruits to be more fair and respectful for new talent and skill. I never play games that never change to better the outcome for long term "development" because I enjoy watching games grow and learn from mistakes and try to improve but still try to connect with their fellow players.
        To LXC and others involved in developing this game, Thank you and keep moving forward. this game is easily my favorite game, not for space theme or epic battles (although I love that too) but for watching how much the game can change in a year I have been playing.
  • Dragonrabbit
    Dragonrabbit
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Jul 2015 Posts: 134

    Paul, I appreciate that you are trying to level with us but heff216 pretty much hit the nail on the head. I also spent money on this game. I was playing it everyday for the better part of a year and having a great time doing so. I also didn't feel too bad at the time about the money because most of the updates I thought really did improve the game and I expected to be playing this game for years to come.

    But holy crap man?!?! Hitting your loyal fans up with event after event knowing that you were going to nerf many of the things we were spending our money on into the ground? You know why we feel pissed about that, how could we not? I feel dumb for buying all of the MK deals that I took advantage of. I basically could've played several AAA new releases and had a much more in depth experience, which brings me too my next point.

    The whole reason I got into this game and stayed in it was because of the community, friends and enemies alike made this interesting. But watching the way kixeye has managed to completely ignore they vast majority of their players basically has many of us looking for the exit. As soon as I heard about the 3rd update on the forums about the changes incoming I started playing less. Just logging on a few minutes here and there to push some buttons. Why go the trouble of getting the freyja when what I really wanted was the rag that I worked so hard on to just stay the way it was?

    The speed changes are a nightmare. In retrospect I'm amazed that I was willing to go along with the huge nerf that the meta and shock shields were getting. Hell I was even defending them to some of my allies. "Maybe it will be good for the meta of the game in the long run." I also feel that not taking the gear on a ship into account on the repair time bill is a mistake. Those of us with late game tech will now be able to crush new comers, fixing our fleets of much higher ability with the same 1hp/1sec rep time. But I kept off of the forums about it because finally rep and build times might be going down. It's truly staggering to comprehend how your "groupthink" got to a point where you guys and gals thought that locking speeds within a class was a good idea. And even more staggering to watch you not care when the core of your community stated as clearly as possible "we don't want this." 

    The reason that so many of us feel so strongly about all of this is that it's basically an unforced error on your part. You're killing the best parts of your game so that the mobile market can reign supreme, while also telling us that it's for our own good at the same time. Well Paul, it's not for our own good. You may want us to commit to months of extra grinding to get back on top, but there's no way many of us are up for doing that. When you consider that all of the events and the grinding are tedious in the extreme and that you might change the value of what we've got at some point in the future I for one see no reason too. Which is really quite a shame. There were so many good directions that this game could've gone in. Group blood amber missions, sector wide challenges, or maybe for the love of god do something with those vega and alien bases in orbit around every freaking planet.

    I wasn't a beta tester but I can understand their frustration. For you to be loosing any significant number of those players should be a clear red flag that what you're trying to do isn't good for the community. I'm at least going to try and play for awhile before throwing in the towel, but the prospect of watching my apocs, eagle, and ragdread perform nowhere near to the level I had been using them on makes me think it wont be long. And I sure has hell wont be spending any more on coins. Also I'll be telling my friends to stay away form kixeye as well as writing negative reviews wherever I can. little difference that it will make but still it's the principal of the thing.

    In lieu of undoing the speed changes kixeye, please die a slow hilarious death.

  • Dilbo_78
    Dilbo_78
    Potential Threat
    Joined Aug 2015 Posts: 84

    The barrier to players are the very things KIX has over valued which put off players.  Its not rocket science but simple economics.  Build times are far to long, repair times are far to long, and refits cannot be done concurrently with build times.  These 3 things are the core of your issues.  It is not fun to wait 12-24 hours for a fleet to repair from a 3min fight.  It is not fun for a single ship to take 2 weeks to build and not allow any other ships or refits to be done during that time.

    Yes some other things were broke and needed fixing.  Dread Rag was a big one... but the core of your issue you have not addressed and this is why the game will not live up to it's potential.

  • Fajar Priyanto
    Fajar Priyanto
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Nov 2014 Posts: 335

    @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.

    image
  • Hallack
    Hallack
    Incursion Leader
    Joined May 2015 Posts: 1,085

    @Duke of Dukes said:
    Got it, you want to try to parlay the success of this game on the PC to mobile as that's the new market.  The only reason you have a chance to do this is the hardcore gamers that made Vega so successful initially.  Your most successful game by far.  AND you think that success can continue on Mobile and that hardcore gamers will just follow you?  LOL!  Dude, even with the update playing this game on Mobile blows.  There are hundreds of space games on Mobile that are easier to play and provide more instant gratification.  You don't have a chance AND you are losing your CORE base on the PC.  You think someone on mobile wants a 10 hour repair time?  Most mobile games are much more sly on when you have to spend money, your competition will own you on a mobile market.  That's why nobody that plays this on mobile only stays to play this game!

    You need to build a new game for mobile that is suited to that style of play (no manual FVF for starters).  Instead you choose to be lazy and try and piggyback on the success of this game had on the PC.  OOPS.  Good luck with your next company, try not to make the same mistakes.  Also I'd like a refund.  Where do I go for that, bankruptcy court?

    I play on mobile just fine, thanks. Now that I can zoom out far enough at least. More game stability would go a long, long way though.

  • default1392
    default1392
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Nov 2014 Posts: 483
    So that it may live on forever as the official death of Vega conflict. Here's the archived announcement

    https://www.kixeye.com/forum/discussion/616562/p1

  • Fwiffo040
    Fwiffo040
    Greenhorn
    Joined Aug 2015 Posts: 20


    What is the point of this change?


    To you, the long time players, the game feels good as it is. It doesn’t feel broken or badly out of shape. You like playing the game - if you didn’t you wouldn’t have continued playing it month after month. And yet here am I saying it needs fixing. Well... we’re both right. As it turns out, 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. 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.


    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.


    Paul Preece

    Founder, KIXEYE


    First of all, thanks to @CM LXC and @CM Scarlett for getting the info up the chain - I don't envy your job in the current state of the game.  That being said, I have a few observations to make. 

    To you, the long time players, the game feels good as it is. It doesn’t feel broken or badly out of shape.

    Well...yes and no.  I am a fairly new player, maybe 6 months in.  I'll admit I was overwhelmed at first by the sheer complexity of the game - there was so much to learn!  Over time I have learned, and to this day I am still learning.  There is an incredible game laying in this pile of code, albeit with some spots needing some polish. 

       Whether you see it (or choose to see it), you have a fiercely loyal player base here.  We come from a broad spectrum of backgrounds and nations.  Within that player base, there are 3 main types of player:  the casual player(non-coiner), the heavy coiner and what I call the "occasional coiner."  I fall into this 3rd category.  I do not hold coining against the heavy coiners; they can afford it, and they choose to spend their money on this game.  Some have spent thousands on fleet builds, repairs, base upgrades, you name it.  We occasional coiners throw money at what we feel is a product worthy of it when we can scrape a few bucks from the bottom of the wallet.  Casuals are usually feeling the game out before buying coins, or just not interested in using real money on a game - I understand this; that was me at first.  As I grew to love this game, I felt the need to invest in it because I felt the final product was simply incredible.  I wanted to support 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. 

       What you may not realize, however, is the perspective of the "new player" you are interested in bringing in.  In my opinion, the problem is not the changes you are proposing, the speed equalization notwithstanding.  The problem is the feeling of futility, expressed to me by several new players, when faced with the reality that in order to progress in the game, there are so many obstacles you have to overcome. The need for endless hours of farming in order to achieve even the smallest of milestones.  I understand that some farming is inevitable - players SHOULD have to work for resources, blueprints and such.  However, the amount of time that you have to invest right from the start of the game is simply excessive. I propose looking into an increase in blueprint drops, at least on the first tier or two, in order to show your new players the benefit of the blueprints, and the tech they contain.  Once they see what the blueprints can bring to their gameplay, it will amount to an easier transition into the more standard drop rates on the higher tiers.

       One of the biggest problems I see currently is the gross mismatch between endgamers and new players.  To suggest that you are encouraging a "fair fight" between these groups is ludicrous.  I propose a change to this mechanic where a player's base level is a part of  PvP consideration as well as the 5 level restriction.  It is anything but fair for someone who HAS all the available tech at their disposal to simply pick apart lower level players at will.  While I am sure I will collect an amazing amount of criticism for this idea, understand I see it as a means to ENCOURAGE new players to keep playing.  A staggering amount of players simply give up the game because they just can't see past the idea of being mercilessly farmed.  I learned to understand it being a part of a war game, but not everyone sees this as I do.  They see it as too hard.  Perhaps even raising the ceiling on base attacks should be considered?  Particularly with the advent of Fleet Bay 11.  A level 35 base will never stand up to potentially a level 65 fleet.

       My final suggestion for retaining new players is another simple one...Limit the speed equalization to the first two tiers of ships only.  As new players acclimate to the gameplay and more importantly get a feel for piloting the starter ship types, introducing them to ships with more diverse maneuverability in Tier 3 and beyond will further encourage these players to work for the higher end ships and blueprints.

    Well... we’re both right. As it turns out, 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.

      None of the suggestions I make in this post will cause the current mass exodus of long-standing players that this drastic overhaul has accomplished in a fairly short time.  Your endgame base would remain (somewhat) unaffected, with the exception of countless owners of the Ragnarok/Dread fleets which are now useless, thanks to a major mass hit.  Perhaps consider a less drastic reduction in max mass on the Dread?  So many players have sunk tons of time, effort and more importantly money into building these fleets...only to have that all thrown away in an effort to draw in new players.  This, combined with my other suggestions, would mitigate the adversarial situation you currently face with your player base.


    Please understand that I truly enjoy playing this game, as do many others, in its current configuration.  I understand a need to make changes in order to grow your player base.  However, I ask you to really think about whether it is ultimately worth losing the players that helped make the game what it is with their loyalty (and money) in an effort to bring in players that, quite frankly, may not show the same passion for the game you are presenting to players with that passion.  Now that you have my opinion on what would work as a compromise to the rebalance, I urge you to take a long hard look at it.


    PS - A note to the players:  I know this may not be ideal, and there are a bunch of holes in what I suggest.  Consider the alternative...
    Still erasing signatures.  Even when they make fun of erasing signatures.
  • TheGardian
    TheGardian
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 172

    I would give it time before they start seeing how the game will work with new changes then start over from there with new items

  • bluebird01
    bluebird01
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jan 2013 Posts: 520
    The issue with the mobile game isn't that the ships are that hard to control. It's the bloody rediculous build times. A mobile game is something you pick up briefly when you have the time. There is nothing that would put off a mobile player more than seeing a 2 week build time. Nothing to do with the speeds
    lvl45

    GOAT

    BAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • kixeyeuser_1399800017313_100008353683840
    kixeyeuser_1399800017313_100008353683840
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Dec 2015 Posts: 842

    OK so I had a zynt rev creeper fleet mk4 that was 16 h now it is 20+ h am I missing some thing where is the lower rep time ( did the mate on vegashipp calculator ty @topgear u are doing a nice job :wink: and the rep hase gone up by 16-20% ty kixe ) but that is not the problem I coin and I don't mind coining will having fun the real problem is making all ships in the same class have the same spead now why should I build high-end ships when I can build low end spawn fleets ??? Thee is no sens or point in hi - end ships

  • Scrapster
    Scrapster
    Greenhorn
    Joined Nov 2014 Posts: 17
    That would be me. As a huge fan of VC I want to see the game reach the highs I know it can. I returned to the game as Creative Director back in August, and while the current situation is definitely a low point, the features the team are currently working on are some of the most exciting I’ve seen in any of our games. 

    This makes complete and total sense to me.  This is when the game started making poorly thought out changes and going back on its word.  MK-E Hulls stopped.  The BM stopped showing up.  This is the moment the player anger started building.  I'm sorry Sir, I just don't like your VC, I like the last Creative Directors version better.
  • theARGENTINIAN
    theARGENTINIAN
    Greenhorn
    Joined Apr 2015 Posts: 13

    This is not a mobile phone game, this is a PC one, you just play on mobile when you don't have a PC to play it.. And even tho if you wanna be successful in this game you just farm and get bps, better ships and weapons, that made me the player I am now, even made me coin to be up to the challenge, get the apoc to have the speed to be a real challenge to most experienced players... Being speed a problem I got cutters too.. Rags dreads.. I was **** between all the others players.. That didn't make me quit l, I just got better.

  • 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.
    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.

  • schlage1775
    schlage1775
    Greenhorn
    Joined May 2015 Posts: 12

    This is theft pure and simple. You can not sell upgrades for ships then Nerf them. If you do this rebalance you need to refund the money of all players that have bought any of the mark upgrades or spent coins on building ships that get nerfed. Anything less is just plain stealing.

  • jbuszkie47
    jbuszkie47
    Potential Threat
    Joined Oct 2013 Posts: 60

    The only way I see this as fair is if you reset everyone and give them credits equal to the ships they have..  You have 4 MK4 dreads?  You can turn them in for an equivalent amount of coins/parts that will give you 4 mk4 vig battleships..  Or something like that.

    AND...  You still need to address the repair time.  Put the Shields back so they have a place.


    This letter did nothing to change the way I feel about the game and will still quit.  I've spent two+ years build only to have to grind again??  No thanks.  Good luck getting a whole new player base..  That seems to be your goal..  Forget the old players...  Just fix the game for new ones!




  • DoisReis
    DoisReis
    Potential Threat
    Joined Jul 2015 Posts: 57
    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.


  • LIL_NORA
    LIL_NORA
    Greenhorn
    Joined Jan 2013 Posts: 3

    What is the point of this change?

    To find the reason for the changes we have to go back in time, to when VC was first created. When KIXEYE first imagined VC it was as a space themed version of a PC game we had previously created called Battle Pirates

    So in other words you will do the same as Battle Pirates (kill the game) :( I stopped playing Battle Pirates after all the nerfing you did there good thing I was invited to play VC as a beta

    Now why dot you start developing new game and leave this one the way it is Please

  • marton.keri
    marton.keri
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Apr 2015 Posts: 525
    Well, this has been said folks...

    Personally I don't feel the urge to spend any more money on this game. Not because of this rebalance, this is just another drop in the sea. I lost confidence in KIX.

    I share most of the concerns raised by players here, and disagree with most of the intentions and reasons behind the rebalancing changes.

    Spending money on something that you have no further control over, and can be changed at any point in time in the future would be a foolish investment.
Sign In or Register to comment.