New ships in the game

michaelg21
michaelg21
Master Tactician
Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 2,091
Hi Ghillie-I have a question for the "team". In years past, we as players were always mentioning how we disliked the ever growing length of ship build times. For quite awhile they had been getting shorter and maxed out at about 15 days. Flagships had been around 8 days for the body. Then the OC went far above that and turned out to be a 28 day build, the longest in game history. Now, we have this NEW ship, the Harrower with a 30 Day build time. These are the things that TURN PLAYERS OFF. A 30 day build time for one ship. Yes, I know, you hope players will coin the ship. I get it. But can you ask why they are doubling the average build time for these last 2 ships? Am I to assume it will be this way from this point forward? The game seems to be less and less inviting to the average player who doesn't spend a FORTUNE to play. The is absolutely NOTHING fun or reasonable about a month long ship build.
  • SKEETER808
    SKEETER808
    Potential Threat
    Joined Jan 2020 Posts: 30
    Amen ~!!!
  • Sputnik001
    Sputnik001
    Master Tactician
    Joined Jun 2013 Posts: 2,026
    Seems crazy, when with the current state a fleet of 5 WH can get through a good portion of bases/.....
  • kixeyeuser_3616496
    kixeyeuser_3616496
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Aug 2014 Posts: 225
    still trying to finnish glads...no everest built  yet...forget a new base hitter

  • Marr4
    Marr4
    Greenhorn
    Joined May 2018 Posts: 22
    i agree, but it is fun watching those idiots buy it and then cannot drive for **** and die after a few hits.

    it a powerful tool, but there are better ways to kill bases than use this lol
  • DerpyTheCow
    DerpyTheCow
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Aug 2012 Posts: 2,771

    I’m more upset by releasing Warhound upgrades at 50 days, Overlord at 30 days, Trencher Upgrades at 30 days, and Harrower at 30 days (for those keeping track, that’s 160 days). That’s a lot of built time in what I can only assume is a two month window (Piranha before this, and I can’t see them having no new PvP shipyard content for another 100 days).
    Good thing the Trencher/Warhound upgrades are meh at best

    When I am not helping people on forums, and I'm not banned, I run a YouTube channel.  I focus on actually helping players in the game. I respond to every comment on there, so it is the best way to find me. If you want more info click the link below.

    https://www.youtube.com/c/DerpyTheCow47?sub_confirmation=1
  • carbonblu
    carbonblu
    Potential Threat
    Joined Jan 2015 Posts: 67
    ..."Then the OC went far above that and turned out to be a 28 day build, the longest in game history"...

    well Ghostcrawler was more than 30 days. but was really a monster hull, and was it for an year....i'm not sure new hulls will be.

    And all flagships, now? they release 7 days before event, and build time is 8,5 days (only hull) + 6,5 for refit + U1+U2+U3+X1. about 30 days and no token. (honestly, if you don't upgrade X1, you have an half usefull flag...)

    i don't need "all and now", but at least i would have the choice to fit different strategic stuff on those hull. but i can't. i can use only dedicate armor, dedicate weapon, dedicate stuff. i can't use brain, only "buy" the same stuff and buy time to fit them. before other players do it

    this is no fun

  • Just Another Player
    Just Another Player
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Mar 2016 Posts: 238
    Actually, the longest build was the Caedes which took 35 days for me.
    New Ship, figure out, refit, refit refit, refit...new turret, new base defense special / armor, new ship, figure out, refit, refit, refit.  REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT.  That's Kixeye in a nutshell.
  • Drax
    Drax
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Oct 2012 Posts: 1,755
    And on top of that you don't get a blueprint for the two new hulls, you got to collect shards (14 of them for each ship) before you get the blueprint, this is a giant turn off. 

    126,000 points to get the hull! Look at those numbers, we had refactor because the numbers were too big. Look at this acceleration again. Massive inflation of cost for obtaining a single flagship.

    People on comms see this and all you see is "count me out for this one" after the events start they'll hit a few targets with all the sneaky latest stuff added and the next comment "that's it I am done, going to sit the rest of this out"

    Should be encouraging play not trying to drive players away.
    ...
  • devilsreject971
    devilsreject971
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 1,393
    Drax said:
    And on top of that you don't get a blueprint for the two new hulls, you got to collect shards (14 of them for each ship) before you get the blueprint, this is a giant turn off. 

    126,000 points to get the hull! Look at those numbers, we had refactor because the numbers were too big. Look at this acceleration again. Massive inflation of cost for obtaining a single flagship.

    People on comms see this and all you see is "count me out for this one" after the events start they'll hit a few targets with all the sneaky latest stuff added and the next comment "that's it I am done, going to sit the rest of this out"

    Should be encouraging play not trying to drive players away.
    Not massive, and considering the significant power that both hulls offer, it shouldn't be something that is just given away. This forces people to actually make a choice. And considering that the old GC/Caedes, etc were all significantly large/long builds.... yeah... not really seeing the point...
  • devilsreject971
    devilsreject971
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 1,393
    Hi Ghillie-I have a question for the "team". In years past, we as players were always mentioning how we disliked the ever growing length of ship build times. For quite awhile they had been getting shorter and maxed out at about 15 days. Flagships had been around 8 days for the body. Then the OC went far above that and turned out to be a 28 day build, the longest in game history. Now, we have this NEW ship, the Harrower with a 30 Day build time. These are the things that TURN PLAYERS OFF. A 30 day build time for one ship. Yes, I know, you hope players will coin the ship. I get it. But can you ask why they are doubling the average build time for these last 2 ships? Am I to assume it will be this way from this point forward? The game seems to be less and less inviting to the average player who doesn't spend a FORTUNE to play. The is absolutely NOTHING fun or reasonable about a month long ship build.
    Longest in game history? I seem to recall several DNX/MCX builds that were 26/27/28 days....and some other hulls that were fairly similar...

    Also, just doing a full build from the word go is adding time...because if you do it in chunks, its more like 23-24 days...

    But lastly, do you ever do anything besides come on here and complain? I mean, literally every post of yours is 100000000% negative or complaints..
  • Drax
    Drax
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Oct 2012 Posts: 1,755

    Not massive, and considering the significant power that both hulls offer, it shouldn't be something that is just given away. This forces people to actually make a choice. And considering that the old GC/Caedes, etc were all significantly large/long builds.... yeah... not really seeing the point...
    I am sure you don't see the point, maybe take a look at the player numbers through the years that might help a little.

    There are things in the game people don't like and those things cause people to walk away, and instead of addressing those issues and eradicating them Kix keeps doing more of the very same things that keeps driving their customers away. 

    Shards is one or those things so is the escalating costs, like FM items 15k for an engine then 45k for an engine (limited of course so you have to get many) same with armours. These tactics disenfranchise the customer base. When player numbers drop it affects us all. 

    This forces Kix to move in ever decreasing circles while trying to maintain their bottom line through a diminishing audience. 

    It gets tough.

    So you see win back being used. Free gits to attack players back out of retirement. But listen and work with the players before they go and you would not have the problem.
    ...
  • devilsreject971
    devilsreject971
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 1,393
    Drax said:

    Not massive, and considering the significant power that both hulls offer, it shouldn't be something that is just given away. This forces people to actually make a choice. And considering that the old GC/Caedes, etc were all significantly large/long builds.... yeah... not really seeing the point...
    I am sure you don't see the point, maybe take a look at the player numbers through the years that might help a little.

    There are things in the game people don't like and those things cause people to walk away, and instead of addressing those issues and eradicating them Kix keeps doing more of the very same things that keeps driving their customers away. 

    Shards is one or those things so is the escalating costs, like FM items 15k for an engine then 45k for an engine (limited of course so you have to get many) same with armours. These tactics disenfranchise the customer base. When player numbers drop it affects us all. 

    This forces Kix to move in ever decreasing circles while trying to maintain their bottom line through a diminishing audience. 

    It gets tough.

    So you see win back being used. Free gits to attack players back out of retirement. But listen and work with the players before they go and you would not have the problem.
    I'll agree with you on the whole shards/limited item thing, no one likes it, especially when it becomes a MUST HAVE item (in terms of weapons/specials). When it comes to a particular ship though, the idea behind the shards is actually okay in my opinion. It allows some players to earn it slowly without diminishing their efforts... while rewarding players who can immediately.

    Are the prices perhaps a bit high? Sure, I won't disagree with it.... but thats how it is in a lot of games... you dont always get to have what you want...

    And yes, Kixeye could do 100234023505023004 things to listen to the players and fix this game... but we've already figured out that they dont care
  • xRaizune
    xRaizune
    Greenhorn
    Joined Jul 2020 Posts: 7
    I think I remember seeing a hellhound getting 40+days when it came out. (With about a day to repair, per ship.)
  • Kapt_K
    Kapt_K
    Greenhorn
    Joined May 2020 Posts: 3
    Big power creep is in play.  Making me give big pause - again.
  • michaelg21
    michaelg21
    Master Tactician
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 2,091
    Drax said:

    Not massive, and considering the significant power that both hulls offer, it shouldn't be something that is just given away. This forces people to actually make a choice. And considering that the old GC/Caedes, etc were all significantly large/long builds.... yeah... not really seeing the point...
    I am sure you don't see the point, maybe take a look at the player numbers through the years that might help a little.

    There are things in the game people don't like and those things cause people to walk away, and instead of addressing those issues and eradicating them Kix keeps doing more of the very same things that keeps driving their customers away. 

    Shards is one or those things so is the escalating costs, like FM items 15k for an engine then 45k for an engine (limited of course so you have to get many) same with armours. These tactics disenfranchise the customer base. When player numbers drop it affects us all. 

    This forces Kix to move in ever decreasing circles while trying to maintain their bottom line through a diminishing audience. 

    It gets tough.

    So you see win back being used. Free gits to attack players back out of retirement. But listen and work with the players before they go and you would not have the problem.
    I'll agree with you on the whole shards/limited item thing, no one likes it, especially when it becomes a MUST HAVE item (in terms of weapons/specials). When it comes to a particular ship though, the idea behind the shards is actually okay in my opinion. It allows some players to earn it slowly without diminishing their efforts... while rewarding players who can immediately.

    Are the prices perhaps a bit high? Sure, I won't disagree with it.... but thats how it is in a lot of games... you dont always get to have what you want...

    And yes, Kixeye could do 100234023505023004 things to listen to the players and fix this game... but we've already figured out that they dont care
    You are absolutely entitled to whatever opinion you have. Fact is, if you actually pay attention to my posts, they are NOT all negative. MOST of them are to report problems with the game. Regardless, this forum IS for opinions-if you don't like or agree with mine, don't read them-and I say this with as much respect as any other opinion on here. You guys mentioned the GC, Caedes,etc-yes they were longer BUT they were specialty super Hulls with 400% repair times that were never meant for wide release like the OC and Harrower are-big difference.
    You are missing the point here dramatically. We went AWAY FROM long building hulls. Even upgraded our labs to reduce build times-so what happened with these ships? They would be 40+ day builds if we hadn't upgraded the labs. Do you get it yet?
  • devilsreject971
    devilsreject971
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 1,393

    You guys mentioned the GC, Caedes,etc-yes they were longer BUT they were specialty super Hulls with 400% repair times that were never meant for wide release like the OC and Harrower are-big difference.
    You are missing the point here dramatically. We went AWAY FROM long building hulls. Even upgraded our labs to reduce build times-so what happened with these ships? They would be 40+ day builds if we hadn't upgraded the labs. Do you get it yet?
    Two limited ships that are extremely powerful/beneficial.....compared to all of the T7/T8/T9 Conquerors.... It makes FAR MORE SENSE that they should take longer, that they should be more difficult to attain... You only get one.... you dont get to get more... so yes, they should be harder to get, harder to build, etc... because they CHANGE the level of playing field.

    The GC and Caedes were both extremely powerful and completely/drastically altered any battle they got in when they were the dominant ships....to the point they were able to wipe out entire bases/targets for instant repair/if not free all together.
  • jschlueter1
    jschlueter1
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Mar 2015 Posts: 852

    You guys mentioned the GC, Caedes,etc-yes they were longer BUT they were specialty super Hulls with 400% repair times that were never meant for wide release like the OC and Harrower are-big difference.
    You are missing the point here dramatically. We went AWAY FROM long building hulls. Even upgraded our labs to reduce build times-so what happened with these ships? They would be 40+ day builds if we hadn't upgraded the labs. Do you get it yet?
    Two limited ships that are extremely powerful/beneficial.....compared to all of the T7/T8/T9 Conquerors.... It makes FAR MORE SENSE that they should take longer, that they should be more difficult to attain... You only get one.... you dont get to get more... so yes, they should be harder to get, harder to build, etc... because they CHANGE the level of playing field.

    The GC and Caedes were both extremely powerful and completely/drastically altered any battle they got in when they were the dominant ships....to the point they were able to wipe out entire bases/targets for instant repair/if not free all together.
    Hes Right You Know Memes - Imgflip
  • Bin_Chicken
    Bin_Chicken
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Feb 2015 Posts: 201
    Two limited ships that are extremely powerful/beneficial.....compared to all of the T7/T8/T9 Conquerors.... It makes FAR MORE SENSE that they should take longer, that they should be more difficult to attain... You only get one.... you dont get to get more... so yes, they should be harder to get, harder to build, etc... because they CHANGE the level of playing field.

    The GC and Caedes were both extremely powerful and completely/drastically altered any battle they got in when they were the dominant ships....to the point they were able to wipe out entire bases/targets for instant repair/if not free all together

    Rubbish, GC and Caedes were also able to do PVE were so far up the scale and out of reach of the non-coiner to not have a massive impact on the game + the repair times were days long.

      The Overlord and Harrower are not unbeatable are not unobtainable for the everyday player and I doubt very much its going to become a two ship PVP game all they have done is double the cost in the guise of "everyone will eventually be able to have one", we see what you have done there Kix it worked with the Overlord hit a base or two its obvious loads of players took the bait and will with the Harrower.

     I can understand the Kix fans need to justify but please reign it in a little.
  • Dave Martin
    Dave Martin
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Sep 2012 Posts: 805
    another idea would be with having to get shards now for a hull maybe think about having it insta build since it takes a long time for non coiners to get. coiners will still coin to get shards, upgrade and whatever so you could make more money doing insta builds for pvp hulls. 
Sign In or Register to comment.