Devs don't care

1. That's only if you alienate that sparse player base. If you manage to implement a system they like you have nothing to worry about. Other games usually use a test server for things like this so it doesn't affect everyone and those that are affected are well aware they are testing something and it doesn't affect them the same way... and if the top five players were to join the same team it would serve them right to be in queue eternally lol
2. From what I've been able to research you're pulling in 1500-2000 new players per day, I think you have enough to allow for teams. Perhaps not. Maybe a 2 or 3 player team is a better option for now with the rest of the team being randoms. That should ease the strain on the matchmaker while at the same time giving players a chance to cooperate and form better tactics and just play with their friends.
3. I'm not a coder but you've already enabled profiles from the pond and from chat, I don't see why it would be so much more difficult to do the same on the score screen but maybe you could enlighten me.
5. Progression solves that issue. Unlock new maps at certain levels. This way a player can learn maps in a more gradual manner and earn a new one before they're bored to tears.
6. No, you can't and shouldn't develop the game according to polls but if your goal is majority support you should at least consider what they're asking for.
7. Submarine, hovercraft, airboat, catamaran... just sayin
8. What would I add? Lol this could take a while...
- new crew #1 "homer": guidance system specialist that enhances existing weapons with new capabilities. Fly-by-wire torpedoes, smart mortars and a cluster effect that turns mines into mini mines
- new crew #2 "pyro" (related to burnice somehow): flamethrower, parachute flares that extend vision range, smoke bombs
- new crew #3 "gunner": 40mm auto-Cannon, .50cal machine gun, kinetic rods, CiWS
- new crew #4 "armie" (related to Brock somehow): hull skirts, torpedo blisters, deck plates, water cannon for putting out fires
10. That's true and I won't argue with it but it's based on the assumption that only infamy should be used as a factor in matchmaking. A more comprehensive system could improve parity in games by taking weapon, crew and captain levels into consideration.

1. I sed to look forward to every shop update just in case the item I wanted or a rare+ box was available, now it's just meh. You say there's a chance at better items, I'll take your word for it but the best I've seen is a piece and not a full item. 1/10 of an item means it will take 10 lucky boxes to make an item, that's 150 stars whereas before I could buy a rare box for 50 stars.
2. This may seem okay from your perspective but to the player there's no feeling of progression, it's like we're spinning our wheels going nowhere.
3. I have played similar games and stoped because it always felt like I couldn't get anywhere without pulling out a credit card. Please don't take battle bay in that direction.
4. Sorry.
5. Serendipity is good, it gave us Levi's, vulcanized rubber, tea bags, penicillin, floating soap and much more. Don't stop something that is having a positive effect.
6. Again, sorry.

 

Okay, that makes sense. Would it be possible to add a link/button (report a player from this game or something similar) that takes you to another scene where it could be performed without affecting the battle scene?

 

I'd like to chime in here. Personally, the "what we asked" isn't a deal breaker for me. It's the "what we got" that disappoints.

1. It's the 'can' get versus the 'will' get that is being raised as an issue. I opened 10 uncommon boxes and took note of the crap I got. Here's what I got: crap. Lots and lots of uncommons and commons. No epic item or rare item even. 2 rare parts. No epic parts. @kylek33 also mentions something similar in his later post. I scrapped the crap and got lucky with one epic part. Now the counter argument would probably be "10 isn't a large enough sample size". Agree. So what I CAN tell you is that ever since the update I've only managed to make ONE epic item which I ended up scrapping. It was an epic FG. I decided to scrap it cos I already have a T4 rare FG and the thought of the amount of resources and time and luck required to make the epic FG T4 made me say "screw this shit, I'll live with the rare FG". Working as intended?

2. Agree that 1 new level is 'better' than 1 old level. But what the community is saying is that it is still too resource intensive. What we are asking for is maybe some tweaks? In this generation of instant gratification and mobile games, players want to see quick returns on time spent. Currently, time spent doesn't commensurate resource gain. So it needs to be tweaked a bit more.

3. Sorry are you comparing Battle Bay with Diablo and WoW? As much as I love this game, BB is kinda out of league. And speaking from experience, I played at least 8hrs on the weekend and I didn't manage to upgrade a crew member or an item. You know why? Additional constraints (e.g. Time, parts, cells, etc). Overall, this makes the grind tiresome.
The maximum of 3 shop refresh in 4hrs is like once a day? Pls stop mis-leading players by only stating the extreme scenarios.

 

I am so glad you brought that up. you cannot compare a mobile app to a fully fleshed out PC game

 

I play consistently every day and i cant save Gold enough to buy a Second mk4 ship.
I buy only weapon parts in the shop and sometimes perks.
I have sugar for evolution of the crew and for the scarce oportunities of lvling items, but Gold is the main problem ATM, as It would provide opp to buy scraps as well.
The prices would be ok IF we earned considerably more Gold per battle.
AND IM TALKING ABOUT 20+ BATTLES PER DAY, Just to make clear. Something is Very wrong.

 

Above players are really love bb but.... plz

 

Only if you compare the maximum possible graphincs and possible control/input options. otherwise BB is a full grown game.

 

No it isn't. It's certainly a great mobile game but any PC title would have a solo campaign mode, more customization, more maps, more everything really. It really only equates to an expansion pack add-on for a full game.

 

1. I feel I can never achieve an item superior to a rare evo 4 starting with an epic item from L1 evo 1. It feels like into might take years having to juggle upgrading other items and collecting item pieces and parts and cells before I can make an L1 evo 1 epic to be viable at my infamy level. The old system was a lot more forgiving when working on side projects because while hoarding items to evolve, you could use the not needed items to level the side project.

2. The generous resource gain is offset by the intensive gold resource requirement; parts, pieces, cells, perks, fusing, etc. I like the sugar change so now I'm flush with sugar and scare on gold. I can't use sugar efficiently because time taken to train crew is like 4 days? I can't use sugar to level up items because I'm missing pieces, parts or cells. So I'm sitting with full sugar and no gold.

3. The gameplay and overall experience games like Diablo and WoW give are so much deeper and richer. It's like comparing a good beer with a good whisky. Both are good but both are different. I believe the point you were trying to make was that 4hrs of BB gameplay nets you one item whereas 4hrs of WoW gameplay might get you squat. But 4hrs of WoW gameplay is a lot richer experience and wouldn't feel so dreary and grindy (even though one could be grinding away).

PS: you didn't comment on my 8hr grind and additional resources.

 

In terms of upgrading costs I think comparing to Hearthstone would be a great idea.

In Battlebay you are quickly matched up against world top 10 players in almost completed gear. In BB it drains all your ressources trying to keep 1 ship up-to-date and I never find myself with spare gold/sugar to work on new ships or weapons.

In Hearthstone its fairly easy to make a competitive deck that can take you to legend and have a fair chance to beat top 10 players. In Hs additional ressources go into increasing your options (new tech cards, new decks), rather than an always strangling grind to keep your only ship afloat.

1 f2p model keeps me interested longer than the other. I would love to try out another ship than my Fixer, but even after spending 2million gold my speeder is just a burden to my teammates as I havent spent months grinding on its items. Trying out stuff is fun, but hopeless is you want to be competitive in bb.

 

Hearthstone is very much a pay to win game. After a small winning streak you'll be pitted against people with cards you've never even seen before and they'll wipe the floor with you. That's why I don't play hearthstone anymore, I'll leave bb too if it be knew a pay to win kind of game

 

*if it becomes a pay to win kind of game

 

I guess HS might be brutal for a new player, but for oldtimers its fairly easy to stay competitive and f2p at the same time.

Entry barrier (30cards that work together) is much much lower than what is required to fight top players in BB. Getting to a point where you loose because of skill and not cards/gear takes much longer and will cost you much more in BB.

Dont get me wrong, I like BB (and Hs) - But if any of those games are pay to win then its BB. I could play for years in BB and never catch up.

 

@Kitterini but... the players at the top have *mostly* been playing for over a year now. they have been patiently building their setups and honing their skills over multiple thousands of battles (bt is coming up on 40,000 battles). they have stuck it out through multiple balance changes while game breaking issues were being fixed. They have worked hard to achieve their ranking. Why should a new player be able to "catch up" to over a year of hard work without paying for it?

 

Serious strawman issues in your last sentense eh? Discussions become silly if you quote people for statements they havn't made, shape up!
---
Its a silly way to argue your case, cause obviously games like this need some amount of incentive to grow and neither of us disagree on that.

Perhaps we disagree on how large a gap makes for a meaningful play experience though, but that is mostly a case of a very small player pool I suppose. Me shooting my 300damage cannon at your 11k hp is probably not very exciting gameplay for either of us.

Comparing to Hs where a new player will have very few encounters with high end players, here you end up facing blacktail and the like with 2.5k hp and t2/3 blue items every 2nd game.

 

hehe, calling out a logical fallacy. +1 for that.

But you can't compare BB to HS because BB is still beta and not released to 90% of the world. You gotta extrapolate a bit here...

Many/most of these issues are fixed with a larger player pool which comes with a global launch. The pool is too small now, and feels like it is shrinking on the pro level as they get tired and quit. Global launch will fix this since the game has only been released in some of the smallest markets in the world to stress test it.

Can't wait... but even then it will take a while for things to balance. But in the short term, the matchmaking experience will improve drastically for the newer players upon global launch, and that's good.

 

It's not in beta, it's in limited release and whether that's intended to stress test it or test its viability we can't say for sure. Remember that this is Rovio's first attempt at a PvP game so the moneymen might not have been willing to shell out the dough for the bigger markets until after it proved itself in the smaller ones. But I agree emphatically that the player pool is shrinking just not your reasoning for it. While I'm sure some did just grow tired of the game I don't think that can account for the amount of people that have left.