Is the more Open Playground feel of 3.0 making a comeback?

[TechSY730]

I remember complaints that have been around since the 4.0 versions that the number of effective strategies to win or even survive has been cut down severely, too severely. Aka, severely hurting the "sandbox with a goal" feeling the 3.0 versions had. This was a valid complaint, as the devs have been trying to simultaneously balance the game to the new mechanics, remove abusive/exploitative/broken strategies, and keep a large number of strategies viable. Sadly, the last one is the one the suffered during the 3.0 (last beta)->4.0->5.0(stable) release cycles.

But now that the 5.0 game has matured quite a bit as of version 5.017 (the latest beta version as of this writing), does the game feel a little more "free"/"sandbox like"/"open"/whatever? Or does it still need some major overall pacing/balance tweaking?

P.S. Could someone suggest a better title for this thread?

[wyvern83]

"Is the more Open Playground feel of 3.0 making a comeback?"

How about that?

[TechSY730]

"Is the more Open Playground feel of 3.0 making a comeback?"

How about that?

Thanks, I went ahead and used this.

So, does anyone have any opinions on this?

(Strangely enough, I don't, thanks to my terrible memory for events)

[Cyborg]

The problem with what happened during the development cycle was that there didn't seem to be enough time to actually deal with the exploit behavior, and I don't think that the exploit behavior was even defined. The general complaint from the developers was that some people were winning the game too quickly, bypassing a lot of the content. The answer was to create core shield generators, which from what I can tell has about 50-50 response from the players on this board, with some people unaware that you can even turn it off. Every once in a while someone wanders by and doesn't even understand the mechanic.

That being said, it IS optional.

The other exploit I remember happened to involve cloaking strategies, which was probably the worst of the two.

So maybe you could define what kind of sandbox features you feel are missing? 

[TechSY730]

So maybe you could define what kind of sandbox features you feel are missing?

Sadly, I don't really know. You'll need to ask the players that were "yelling" the loudest about this issue.

I think that Draco18s was one of the biggest players in bringing this into discussion a few months back, but I could be remembering wrong.

[Cyborg]

So maybe you could define what kind of sandbox features you feel are missing?

Sadly, I don't really know. You'll need to ask the players that were "yelling" the loudest about this issue.

I think that Draco18s was one of the biggest players in bringing this into discussion a few months back, but I could be remembering wrong.

I'm confused why you would bring up an issue for which you have no opinion and no recollection. Can't really answer a question that has such an ambiguous definition. But I will answer as a gamer.

I don't play with core shield generators on because it usually interferes with the planets I actually want to take. Always results in me taking on more AIP for stuff I don't even want, so I stopped playing with that pretty quickly. I do play with the cloaking strategies, if only occasionally and during certain situations. It used to be that I would cloak all the time because it was so overpowered, but it feels just right at the moment.

I just thought of a good analogy. I look at my AIP as a golfer looks at their score. I try to keep it as low as possible, and when I complete games I get an extra little something out of having a particularly low AIP score.

[TechSY730]

On further reflection, I think I can define this issue a little more clearly.

Over the turbulent process of the 3.0(last beta)->5.0(stable) process, many formally viable strategies became mediocre to downright ineffective gimmicks. Worse, almost all new strategies introduced were also ineffective gimmicks. (anyone remember how the devs were hyping the Neinzul mobile shipyard thing, and look how it effective it actually is...)

The end result was a dramatic reduction in the proportion of viable strategies. Thus, giving a more "the dev's way, or the highway" feeling to the game.

Of course, I am simplifying or exaggerating things, but I hope I am getting the point across, as well as expressing the frustration many players expressed during those development cycles.

What I am asking is if that feeling is lessened in recent betas.

[TechSY730]

I'm confused why you would bring up an issue for which you have no opinion and no recollection. Can't really answer a question that has such an ambiguous definition. But I will answer as a gamer.

Because I remember how many players were very frustrated or at least concerned about the direction of the game over those periods, even though I don't remember the specifics or even what my opinion about it was at the time.

[Cyborg]

Worse, almost all new strategies introduced were also ineffective gimmicks. (anyone remember how the devs were hyping the Neinzul mobile shipyard thing, and look how it effective it actually is...)

The end result was a dramatic reduction in the proportion of viable strategies. Thus, giving a more "the dev's way, or the highway" feeling to the game

The mobile shipyard is awesome if you play Neinzul ships or autobombs. And I think that the tension you are speaking about is probably because they tried to do too much in that release window. They were converting all of their code and doing the spire expansion while making radical changes to the interface, graphics, faux full-screen, and the memory requirements of the unity engine. Then, all of those rule changes on top of that really exhausted all the players and most likely themselves. Tidalis wasn't breaking any records, and I seem to recall there was a post about a money shortage (to which there was a positive community response).

Everyone had about enough, and the end of the development cycle was a sigh of relief from everybody I'm sure.

We will see what the new game brings, hard to make a judgment without actually being able to play it, but I think that AI war will probably be a strong contender and cash cow for arcen for a few more years.

[superking]

I definately miss the days of 3.0 where almost every bonus ship somehow contrived to feel overpowered, which was perfect 

The biggest loss since 3.0 was the incredible nerf to parasite strats.

AI eyes force strats revolving around transports and starships, which is a bit bleh. the armor mechanics plus eyes have made swarm types dreadful.

I get weepy eyed when I sit down and think how much depth has been removed from the combat since 3.0.. everything else has improved, but the tactical combat and bonus shiptypes are pale shadows of what they used be.

[chemical_art]

I definately miss the days of 3.0 where almost every bonus ship somehow contrived to feel overpowered

Put another way.

Rather then adjusting my strategies in response to a new bonus ship I instead force the ship to help a few general stratgies. A few ships are distinctive enough to make an impact and it is these ships that seem to be loved. But many more ships just aren't enough of an impact to make new strategies around.

It's a more homogenous experience.

[TechSY730]

So it seems that the general feeling is that even though it is better, another balance pass or two of all the bonus ships is definitely in order. The uneven usefulness of the bonus ships seems to be among the biggest major game balance issues right now.

[Coppermantis]

I agree that bonus ships need more depth to them, there are only a few ships that for me warrant entirely different strategies, and a few more that don't do that but are uniquely useful.

Shredders and Autobombs fall into the first category, and things like Mirrors, Sentinel Frigates and Bombards are useful in general. A lot of other ships (shield bearers, armor ships, anti-armor ships) don't seem all that useful and I don't tend to use.

[Nalgas]

A lot of other ships (shield bearers, armor ships, anti-armor ships) don't seem all that useful and I don't tend to use.

Ok, I can see a whole lot of ships making it onto the "not all that useful" or "not different enough to make me change my strategy" lists, but shield bearers?  Having a giant squad of flying force fields that prevents almost all damage to the ships underneath them can be both rather useful and rather different from usual, and because they don't have any of the drawbacks of the lame Spirecraft knockoff of them, I find them significantly better.

[Coppermantis]

I guess it's just my preference, but I'll try them out in a full game after I finish my current one and see if my opinion changes.