On 2017-06-17 13:53, Bardiche wrote:
I think DarkSpace lost players mostly due to lack of manpower to address issues with the game (staff's done an awesome job all these years though), and now that it's behind the times it's hard to drum up interest. A modernisation pass sharpening the game's identity is needed, but there's just not enough manpower available to make those changes (or properly iterate on them as a team).

For the past six weeks or so, I've been iterating on what a "DarkSpace V2" could look like by myself, at least design-wise. Wouldn't be able to code it, so it's just been a pleasure project.

Think DarkSpace as a "pick up and play" game that rewards some time investment is certainly workable, but it'd need to nix some measures discouraging play like prestige loss on death and the pay2win enhancements model which get damaged on defeat.

The more value is lost on dying, the less people are inclined to risk dying. And if you're not getting kills, what else is there to fight for?


[ This Message was edited by: Bardiche on 2017-06-17 14:10 ]

On 2017-06-18 10:46, Bardiche wrote:
I agree there needs to be some consequence attached to defeat (and could argue defeat itself is consequence enough) to dissuade people from dying, but without the idea that you could spend two hours grinding your rank only to lose it in two big fights. DarkSpace is pretty much a MOBA, but it still punishes players who lose too fiercely.

Because that punishment is so harsh, people try to avoid dying as much as possible, which leads to fighting only if they feel like they could win. Worse, shooting from great safety is equally rewarding prestige-wise so there is little incentive to actually go in and risk a loss.

So replacing that mechanic with maybe a respawn timer could work. Ships also need to be more accessible, and I'd argue players should spend far less time grinding to get to a bigger ship. From there, the grind should be into variations of that ship, which is what DarkSpace has already started doing somewhat, but not sufficient yet; consider that newer players stand absolutely no chance of destroying a Cruiser or Dread in their Corvette or Frigate and there's little for them to do.

EDIT: I speak in shoulds, but I don't think the developers need to even heed that; I'm sure they have their own vision, and I'm not one to say my vision is superior.

On 2017-06-19 05:27, SnipeDragon wrote:
I think something like this could work, I also think that we should half current prestige requirements for ranks. I don't mean to make light of the accomplishments of current players who have grinded out their ranks and believe something can be done to honor current accomplishments, but I have shown several friends DarkSpace who are turned off after playing for a while and seeing how slow prestige gain can be. They see the "heavy duty" ships that they want to fly, then look at the requirements to use them which are understandably daunting from the perspective of a new player. We could even consider halving requirements for badges, all of this in an effort to make the game appear friendlier to newer players.

If we are going to lower the requirements of Tier 0 ships to Midshipman, or just lower them in general, I think it may be worth combing through the rank and badge requirements for every ship in the game. All of these mentioned changes should be fairly easy to implement, if it is decided to do so.

As far as Scouts and Frigates being unable to take out Cruisers or Dreads, that's only true for ICC Scouts and Frigates because they run out of ammo. UGTO and Luth are perfectly capable of it, I've done it myself several times, but then again I'm hardly a new player.

On 2017-06-21 03:22, Bardiche wrote:

Quote: As far as Scouts and Frigates being unable to take out Cruisers or Dreads, that's only true for ICC Scouts and Frigates because they run out of ammo. UGTO and Luth are perfectly capable of it, I've done it myself several times, but then again I'm hardly a new player.

No self-respecting Dreadnought would allow a Scout to take them out without just jumping away, is what I mean. Your opponent needs to allow you to finish them off, resulting in gameplay patterns where a newcomer can harass a veteran with little fear of reprisal... but stand no realistic chance of actually getting that thrill of first blood because it is so easy to just avoid combat altogether.

I would also argue that it is much more difficult to correctly play a scout versus scout battle than it is a dreadnought versus dreadnought battle; in that respect, I disagree that "smaller ships teach you how to play", as many intricacies of being a small ship do not apply to the larger ships.

On 2017-06-21 07:01, Talien wrote:

infact I much prefer when they run away because it takes longer for them to get back than if they had died and respawned.

On 2017-06-21 13:13, Bardiche wrote:
Without meaning offence, I think this is the wrong attitude to take. DarkSpace is at its most fun when battles happen; the longer it takes someone to return to a fight, the less battles there will be.

Moreover, one must not take their personal enjoyment and use it as an argument to say a given state is good. Which feels more rewarding if you are new and a Generic Game Player? To spend ten minutes of combat with no losses on either side, or to spend five minutes and destroy the other's assets?

I hazard to say that destroying your opponent is more satisfying than forcing them to run, for a broader audience. Given the choice of getting +1 kill or 50 more prestige, I wager most would find the former more satisfying.

I also happen to think scout versus dread is unbalanced in that it is mostly the scout's battle to lose and the dread has far fewer options. A dreadnought should always have options in every fight to foster a feeling of player agency, instead of making them feel helpless and force them into making specific choices (get a smaller ship).

In short, I think for the average player destruction is more satisfying than putting to rout, and players should feel the freedom to make choices and not be forced into them.