Unfortunately, nothing new is being added to this thread. It just keeps going in circles. I don't even see requests to CG being made, just comments about how ships 2.0 is disliked.
what an ugly thing to say... does this mean we're not friends anymore?
So you can be wrong if you state something as a fact, but your opinion isn’t wrong, it’s just yours.
In the future when someone says you're wrong, but you can't be because it's an opinion, just assume they're saying you're wrong about the reasoning/facts to support said opinion.
"i don't like the rolling stones because i don't like hip hop music"
I may not like the stones, but with that reason given i'd probably have to give it another listen before my opinion has any value whatsoever.
See, you get it, it doesn’t have to based on knowledge or facts, that’s why it can’t be right or wrong, it’s just yours.
1 question though, have you ever had a temporary lapse in judgement? Let's say you've downed a few too many beers and and hooked up with a super atractive girl (in your opinion at the time)? What would you consider that opinion of yours the next day when it turns out you actually snogged a mop? (rather extreme to make sure everyone understands it's a hypothetical scenario and didn't really happen to you)
I'd say you were wrong eventhough it was just your opinion.
So you can be wrong if you state something as a fact, but your opinion isn’t wrong, it’s just yours.
In the future when someone says you're wrong, but you can't be because it's an opinion, just assume they're saying you're wrong about the reasoning/facts to support said opinion.
"i don't like the rolling stones because i don't like hip hop music"
I may not like the stones, but with that reason given i'd probably have to give it another listen before my opinion has any value whatsoever.
See, you get it, it doesn’t have to based on knowledge or facts, that’s why it can’t be right or wrong, it’s just yours.
1 question though, have you ever had a temporary lapse in judgement? Let's say you've downed a few too many beers and and hooked up with a super atractive girl (in your opinion at the time)? What would you consider that opinion of yours the next day when it turns out you actually snogged a mop? (rather extreme to make sure everyone understands it's a hypothetical scenario and didn't really happen to you)
I'd say you were wrong eventhough it was just your opinion.
About a month in, here's my Ships 2.0 as F2P on a 6 month old shard:
Since Ships 2.0, I have not dropped farther than rank 12. Usually I only drop to rank 8. I have found it much, much easier to take #1, and I place #1 most days. I only fight two people: the person who is in 4th or 5th (always Mol Eliza), and the person at #1 (always Kilum Natta). Most days, I only fight two battles. I have an effective method to beat both opponents, but it's dependent on target lock. If I don't land a target lock by the second hit, I lose. So while I take 1st most days, there are some days I have to use all five battles just to get into 4th or 5th. Mind you, I am doing the same thing every single time, and I'm having wildly varying results. This wasn't an issue in Ships 1.0. I might lose one battle, do it again, and win. I wouldn't lose 4 out of 5.
"Just change your ships!" Working on it, but as I've said, I'm on a 6 month old shard. My total fleet GP is about 500,000. I'm about to spend a month delaying farms I need for my guild and buying prestige mats instead so I can max out Executrix and get Home One into fighting shape. I just got Bistan's U-Wing to 3*. Umbaran is almost 7*, but Fives is only G9 and Mk3 carbantis are more precious than gold. I can't "just change ships" because I have nothing to change to yet, and the same is true for everyone around me. We're not really battling each other, trying to outfox each other; we're battling RNG. It's zero fun.
I have no problem working on my ships. I generally like ships. So I'm hoping the PVE table fixes my main issue: developing ships takes so many rare resources, making it painfully slow. I don't have enough ship credits to take the ships I'm working on up to level 85. Omega mats and prestige are rare. I'm still sitting on most of my reinforcement abilities, scared to spend them.
I want to like ships. I'm doing well in ships. But I don't like my ability to win being based on how the AI is feeling on a random Tuesday, and I don't like not having a way to develop my way out of that in a timely manner. That is my opinion. And my other opinion is that arguing in this thread about what qualifies as an opinion is dumb.
On my shard, it is still 90% Chimaera so it’s not even a strategy thing (yet). I fight battles against inferior (mirror) fleets and lose due to pure nonsense. My guild mates all vent about the same thing. This is just not cool or fun.
If you're doing something that doesn't work, that's part of the process of discovering what does work. If you just keep doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over, then you really ought to try doing something different. I'm trying not to sound insulting with this, but.... I mean...
I actually look forward to change, but my point is that I am fighting mirror squads...with inferior stats and somehow losing. Strange things happen every battle (opposing Chimaera goes first 80% of the time, opposing ships having a crit-a-thon, magical dodges, etc). This happening much more than 1.0, and I thought that was too RNG-charged. This is nutty...and frustrating. It’s 1 battle and done now
I used to love Ships. I want to love it again, but this path doesn’t feel like it will magically get fun as I play with Genosians or whatever. I upgraded my core ships and reinforcements but I am waiting for some kind of “fix” before I do anything more. My guild mates are doing the same thing.
Give us some way to DECENTLY farm the new materials and ships or get back to ship 1.0, otherwise this update is just as useless as horrible. I got sick of having this game dominated by RNG, it's just a coin flip and you're always on the losing side. Bring this PvE table as fast as you can.
Ships 2.0 is a miserable failure. Not just boring and random but discouraged game play. You should be ashamed that this was your solution to the advancement to game play. Get back at it as this is lame.
I don't care how much you hate Ships 2.0, you can't hate it more than a discussion about what an opinion is.
It’s a discussion, the word is literally in the dictionary available for all to read. Some people can’t compregend the word and I tried to explain it to them, I’m done trying, they don’t understand it, that’s fine, moving right along.
Now its an argument about an argument about a definition of a word about ships 2.0
Have enough of this horrible RNG fest. I tried different thing but it all comes down to RNG. Definitely not worth trying any longer. When (never) things will change I'll see if it is worth again spending time on ships. Keep the ships rework and trash out the 3 ships lineup, it really really sucks bad time.
Have enough of this horrible RNG fest. I tried different thing but it all comes down to RNG. Definitely not worth trying any longer. When (never) things will change I'll see if it is worth again spending time on ships. Keep the ships rework and trash out the 3 ships lineup, it really really sucks bad time.
Okay, except that the ships rework is predicated on the 3 ship starting lineup. You can't have one without the other.
ships2.0 is garbage and should be go where it belongs, to the waste disposal site
i´m afraif the 7* challenges, the territory battle fights and the darksideTB special mission will be also unbeatable for many players, although they beated it easily in ships1.0
Seems like more opinions pouring in that people don’t like ships 2.0, and still the same person/people attempting to devalue people’s opinions. Who said this was going in circles, you were dead right.
Seems like more opinions pouring in that people don’t like ships 2.0, and still the same person/people attempting to devalue people’s opinions. Who said this was going in circles, you were dead right.
Unfornately people can't seem to get any further than saying they dislike fleet for reasons x y and z, but when reaons x y and z are questioned (not the opinion) they just keep repeating them. So yea, it's going in circles, but not because people are attempting to devalue opinions.
Disliking something for the wrong reasons is not going to help improve the game. If the devs adress the reasons you think are responsible for not liking fleet, but they're actually not the real reasons you don't like fleet, chances are you're still not going to like fleet.
realistically speaking there are also valid reasons to not like fleet, but simply hold no value for the devs. For example if you dislike the fact that the reaper got nerfed eventhough you just 7 starred it the other day. Valid reasons to not like the update, worthless opinion for the devs. I know it's a bit more nuanced than that, but you get the point.
On my shard, it is still 90% Chimaera so it’s not even a strategy thing (yet). I fight battles against inferior (mirror) fleets and lose due to pure nonsense. My guild mates all vent about the same thing. This is just not cool or fun.
If you're doing something that doesn't work, that's part of the process of discovering what does work. If you just keep doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over, then you really ought to try doing something different. I'm trying not to sound insulting with this, but.... I mean...
I actually look forward to change, but my point is that I am fighting mirror squads...with inferior stats and somehow losing. Strange things happen every battle (opposing Chimaera goes first 80% of the time, opposing ships having a crit-a-thon, magical dodges, etc). This happening much more than 1.0, and I thought that was too RNG-charged. This is nutty...and frustrating.
This.
It takes 4 times more time than before and is the worst game experience here since whose Poe goes first flipcoin two years ago.
Seems like more opinions pouring in that people don’t like ships 2.0, and still the same person/people attempting to devalue people’s opinions. Who said this was going in circles, you were dead right.
Unfornately people can't seem to get any further than saying they dislike fleet for reasons x y and z, but when reaons x y and z are questioned (not the opinion) they just keep repeating them. So yea, it's going in circles, but not because people are attempting to devalue opinions.
Disliking something for the wrong reasons is not going to help improve the game. If the devs adress the reasons you think are responsible for not liking fleet, but they're actually not the real reasons you don't like fleet, chances are you're still not going to like fleet.
realistically speaking there are also valid reasons to not like fleet, but simply hold no value for the devs. For example if you dislike the fact that the reaper got nerfed eventhough you just 7 starred it the other day. Valid reasons to not like the update, worthless opinion for the devs. I know it's a bit more nuanced than that, but you get the point.
There's really no point in talking. There's no dialogue, even though you are attempting to dialogue. It just goes in one ear and out the other for almost everyone hear, and then everyone doubles down on their position and repeats themselves. One big giant circle to nowhere. Worse, and you're onto something, there's not one suggested change the devs can even consider in ships 2.0 from this thread. I posted a note that I understood those who dislike ships 2.0 and the reasons why a couple pages or so back. I mean, I understand where they're coming from, but understanding isn't what they want. I'm beginning to think they just need to vent, and this is the place for them to unload after all their bad experiences, even if self inflicted. I would say keep up the good fight, but here, I think you should just let it go. Nothing you say will make any difference, however unfortunate that may be.
what an ugly thing to say... does this mean we're not friends anymore?
Seems like more opinions pouring in that people don’t like ships 2.0, and still the same person/people attempting to devalue people’s opinions. Who said this was going in circles, you were dead right.
Unfornately people can't seem to get any further than saying they dislike fleet for reasons x y and z, but when reaons x y and z are questioned (not the opinion) they just keep repeating them. So yea, it's going in circles, but not because people are attempting to devalue opinions.
Disliking something for the wrong reasons is not going to help improve the game. If the devs adress the reasons you think are responsible for not liking fleet, but they're actually not the real reasons you don't like fleet, chances are you're still not going to like fleet.
realistically speaking there are also valid reasons to not like fleet, but simply hold no value for the devs. For example if you dislike the fact that the reaper got nerfed eventhough you just 7 starred it the other day. Valid reasons to not like the update, worthless opinion for the devs. I know it's a bit more nuanced than that, but you get the point.
Numerous people have already explained not only what they don't like but gone into great detail explaining how and why. It certainly is talking in a circle, partly because the same 3 or 4 people try to simply dismiss valid reasons for disliking Ships 2.0 based on a limited example of their own experience or some hypothetical situation hoped for in the future.
There is, as you point out, the frustration of having several hard to farm ships (and, by extension, their pilots) nerfed into near uselessness. Not only a frustration for Ships 2.0, but a concerning move of possible future tactics used to "balance" the game.
Many have gone into great detail to demonstrate the increase effects of RNG on the final outcome of the battle - as related to both smaller number of overall ships used and number of ships in the starting lineup. Many have also very clearly explained that this decrease in number of starting ships also reduces the player's ability to mitigate bad RNG . All are completely valid, and succinct arguments.
Many have also bemoaned the still remaining (despite being out almost a month now) lack of diversity. Indeed, I scan my top 50 and almost all are still running Vader/Biggs/TFP - the only "diversity" is a random Tie Silencer in place of TFP and there are a handful of Tarkin lead's - but still 90%+ Thrawn.
And we have barely begun to discuss how Ships 2.0 has negatively impacted the play in TW. How the persistent TM/cool down situation combined with only 3 starting ships actually benefits a fleet that has already been attacked, thus making any tactic of using multiple strong fleets to "wear down" an opponents fleet in TW, fairly useless.
Most of the polls and posts suggest that about 3/4 of the player base dislike Ships 2.0. Which obviously means that there are also a handful of those who do like it. And this not-so-nuanced attempt at suggesting that simply because 75%+ keep citing the same reasons, that they are just parroting "wrong" reasons is not only not the case, it is also insulting dismissive of their reasons (not just their opinions) - a reason I had taken the weekend to stop posting in this thread.
I fully understand that you, Nic and TVF are fine with Ships 2.0. Some of you think things will improve over time, in terms of diversity. Some defend the nerfs as a "necessary evil" in bringing game balance. And while it's true that you can mitigate RNG on your ships functionality, the fact of the matter is, until you can get the other 2k people in your fleet arena to stop running TFP or other RNG-reliant ships, RNG will still play a larger role in the outcome of the battle than under Ships 1.0 simply because you have fewer starting ships, thus less chance to mitigate a bad RNG break or two early on. Many of these issues are only exacerbated in fleet battles in TW - another disappointing realization for me and most of my guildmates (who are all basically launch players).
If you would like to have a meaningful discussion about the pitfalls of Ships 2.0 (or it's few positives) a suggestion - start by refraining from dismissing those opinions that you disagree with as "wrong" or coming from noobs - both of which you have done directly. Many of the people that don't like Ships 2.0 are launch players and people that have been playing for over two and half years. We are not noobs, nor are our reasons for disliking Ships 2.0 simply knee **** reactions to change. Many of us have long supported game changes and CG/EA in general. Many of us have been called shills in other threads and regarding other topics.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
there's not one suggested change the devs can even consider in ships 2.0 from this thread.
I think "Investigate and possibly retune RNG around target lock, AI crit hits, and enemy dodges" is a solid action item for the devs that would help 75% of the complaints here. So is retuning the daily challenges for capital ships 5* and below - those should be completable by players who don't really give a fig about ships since they're the gate to zeta mats. And investigating potential bugs. And per my critique, ensuring we have enough resources to develop ships in a timely manner (for example, if the upcoming PVE table won't provide ample ship-building materials, perhaps a credit heist equivalent should be created). All of that just to make Ships 2.0 playable for a larger portion of the player base.
Then there's the suggestion that's been there all along: add new ships. Preferably ones not locked behind a paywall for a couple of months like Lando's ****. Surely some new ones are coming with the PVE table? But we still don't know much about the PVE table, so we don't know if our wants and concerns are being addressed or not.
I think people would like to give more specific constructive criticism (would fleet battles be better if you could reinforce immediately? Could certain synergies be made more effective? Biggs is OP; should he be dialed back 10% or 50% or not at all?) but there's a lot that's too broken or up in the air right now to know where to start.
Seems like more opinions pouring in that people don’t like ships 2.0, and still the same person/people attempting to devalue people’s opinions. Who said this was going in circles, you were dead right.
Unfornately people can't seem to get any further than saying they dislike fleet for reasons x y and z, but when reaons x y and z are questioned (not the opinion) they just keep repeating them. So yea, it's going in circles, but not because people are attempting to devalue opinions.
Disliking something for the wrong reasons is not going to help improve the game. If the devs adress the reasons you think are responsible for not liking fleet, but they're actually not the real reasons you don't like fleet, chances are you're still not going to like fleet.
realistically speaking there are also valid reasons to not like fleet, but simply hold no value for the devs. For example if you dislike the fact that the reaper got nerfed eventhough you just 7 starred it the other day. Valid reasons to not like the update, worthless opinion for the devs. I know it's a bit more nuanced than that, but you get the point.
Numerous people have already explained not only what they don't like but gone into great detail explaining how and why. It certainly is talking in a circle, partly because the same 3 or 4 people try to simply dismiss valid reasons for disliking Ships 2.0 based on a limited example of their own experience or some hypothetical situation hoped for in the future.
There is, as you point out, the frustration of having several hard to farm ships (and, by extension, their pilots) nerfed into near uselessness. Not only a frustration for Ships 2.0, but a concerning move of possible future tactics used to "balance" the game.
Many have gone into great detail to demonstrate the increase effects of RNG on the final outcome of the battle - as related to both smaller number of overall ships used and number of ships in the starting lineup. Many have also very clearly explained that this decrease in number of starting ships also reduces the player's ability to mitigate bad RNG . All are completely valid, and succinct arguments.
Many have also bemoaned the still remaining (despite being out almost a month now) lack of diversity. Indeed, I scan my top 50 and almost all are still running Vader/Biggs/TFP - the only "diversity" is a random Tie Silencer in place of TFP and there are a handful of Tarkin lead's - but still 90%+ Thrawn.
And we have barely begun to discuss how Ships 2.0 has negatively impacted the play in TW. How the persistent TM/cool down situation combined with only 3 starting ships actually benefits a fleet that has already been attacked, thus making any tactic of using multiple strong fleets to "wear down" an opponents fleet in TW, fairly useless.
Most of the polls and posts suggest that about 3/4 of the player base dislike Ships 2.0. Which obviously means that there are also a handful of those who do like it. And this not-so-nuanced attempt at suggesting that simply because 75%+ keep citing the same reasons, that they are just parroting "wrong" reasons is not only not the case, it is also insulting dismissive of their reasons (not just their opinions) - a reason I had taken the weekend to stop posting in this thread.
I fully understand that you, Nic and TVF are fine with Ships 2.0. Some of you think things will improve over time, in terms of diversity. Some defend the nerfs as a "necessary evil" in bringing game balance. And while it's true that you can mitigate RNG on your ships functionality, the fact of the matter is, until you can get the other 2k people in your fleet arena to stop running TFP or other RNG-reliant ships, RNG will still play a larger role in the outcome of the battle than under Ships 1.0 simply because you have fewer starting ships, thus less chance to mitigate a bad RNG break or two early on. Many of these issues are only exacerbated in fleet battles in TW - another disappointing realization for me and most of my guildmates (who are all basically launch players).
If you would like to have a meaningful discussion about the pitfalls of Ships 2.0 (or it's few positives) a suggestion - start by refraining from dismissing those opinions that you disagree with as "wrong" or coming from noobs - both of which you have done directly. Many of the people that don't like Ships 2.0 are launch players and people that have been playing for over two and half years. We are not noobs, nor are our reasons for disliking Ships 2.0 simply knee **** reactions to change. Many of us have long supported game changes and CG/EA in general. Many of us have been called shills in other threads and regarding other topics.
I totally agree with all of this, and I am a seasoned player (albeit F2P - since 2015).
However changing certain words in your post could easily make the argument as to why TLJ is a bad SW movie too - just something fun I played with in my head when reading your post, lol - so you are right on so many levels!
@ImYourHuckleberry Thank you for your post discussing the validity of opinions. It's a point that doesn't get much consideration in today's discourse, but it really should.
there's not one suggested change the devs can even consider in ships 2.0 from this thread.
I think "Investigate and possibly retune RNG around target lock, AI crit hits, and enemy dodges" is a solid action item for the devs that would help 75% of the complaints here. So is retuning the daily challenges for capital ships 5* and below - those should be completable by players who don't really give a fig about ships since they're the gate to zeta mats. And investigating potential bugs. And per my critique, ensuring we have enough resources to develop ships in a timely manner (for example, if the upcoming PVE table won't provide ample ship-building materials, perhaps a credit heist equivalent should be created). All of that just to make Ships 2.0 playable for a larger portion of the player base.
Then there's the suggestion that's been there all along: add new ships. Preferably ones not locked behind a paywall for a couple of months like Lando's ****. Surely some new ones are coming with the PVE table? But we still don't know much about the PVE table, so we don't know if our wants and concerns are being addressed or not.
I think people would like to give more specific constructive criticism (would fleet battles be better if you could reinforce immediately? Could certain synergies be made more effective? Biggs is OP; should he be dialed back 10% or 50% or not at all?) but there's a lot that's too broken or up in the air right now to know where to start.
Allow me to paraphrase the Ships 2.0 issues in more summary to help the dialogue.
1) 3v3. It adds more impact to RNG that was mitigated by 5v5
Response : I'm honestly indifferent to whether we run 3v3 or 5v5. Either way, I'll find a way to win. I do agree that under 3v3 RNG plays a larger role, and for me I'm ok with that. I have found ways to mitigate the impact of RNG. But I understand the idea that less RNG is better from 75% of active forum members. If CG brings back 5 ships, I wouldn't care either way.
2) Rng plays too big of a role
Response:I think RNG is fine. But I understand those running mirror matches have greater levels of frustration,. My only comment, what do you expect? If everyone runs the exact same thing, of course RNG will be the deciding factor.
3) The rebalancing of ships picked winners and losers (i.e. Repear)
Response: some say change is inevitable in a healthy game, but in my opinion, I'd have rather not had any changes to ships, because fundamentally I disagree with nerfs of any kind. With that said, I believe CG had to make wholesale changes because the ships 2.0 was was a significant upgrade, and required rebalancing to be effective.
4) Balancing issues for challenges and TW
Response: I'm ok with this request: maybe fine-tuning is needed to keep integrity of game intact.
5) Bugs
Response : this is not a ships 2.0 issue. It's a standing issue.
6) Lack of Resources for Reinforcement material ( I assume ship omegas too)
Response: I'm indifferent.
7) Lack of diversity and new ships
Response: I firmly believe more ships are coming. My only comment? Patience.
8) Reinforce immediately
Response: I'm indifferent, so long as it's fair.
9) Biggs is OP
Response: I disagree with nerfs of any kind.
In total summary, the largest issue from this list is RNG, balancing challenges and TW. And when it comes to rng, I'm a minority position that says stop running mirror matches and you can control rng better. Wai.
A request to CG from me would be only to look into rebalancing issues on challenges and TW, the rest of ships 2.0 is fine, although I'm a minority here on these forums.
what an ugly thing to say... does this mean we're not friends anymore?
Allow me to paraphrase the Ships 2.0 issues in more summary to help the dialogue.
1) 3v3. It adds more impact to RNG that was mitigated by 5v5
2) Rng plays too big of a role
In 5vs5 starting, reinforcement abilities would hardly play a role and the whole ship system would have to be "rebalanced" (not saying that it's well balanced now) to make them meaningful. Let's be realistic, this in not going to happen.
There are two aspects affecting the impact of RNG, I mean look at squad arena. Mirror matches do also depend on RNG there but often not as much and it's not just because of mods. Has anyone ever complained that "I can't auto myself up to 1st place in arena because of bloody RNG"? If there is little strategy involved and the AI follows a more or less similar attack strategy like most players, mirror matches are dominated by RNG. Ship battles are less intricate than squad battles for several reasons, maybe 3vs3 adds to that problem, I don't know. Anyway, there are two solutions. First, try to come up with strategies using the existing ships (some have been posted) even though I admit that this doesn't work on a short term base for most of us that don't have a wide variety of ships and pilots maxed. Second, adding more complexity (e.g. faction synergies, "wing leader" abilites, whatever) or somehow creating situations where the standard AI move is much worse than what smart players would do.
6) Lack of Resources for Reinforcement material ( I assume ship omegas too)
Response: I'm indifferent.
I'm not! The time it takes to max the abilities of a ship (or even worse capitol ship) is currently ridiculously high. There is no room for experimenting with lineups if it takes a month to get the abilities of a single ship maxed and that is what often matters considering the bonus progression.
That would be like a 4vs4 and make reinforcement abilities a lot more relevant, considering that my battles are usually decided by the time the AI gets to call the first reinforcement. It would also require some balancing adjustments since a lot of ships are very good in starting lineup and have a great reinforcement ability (Biggs, Vader, etc.). I can think of some combinations that are not "healthy" and could in fact make ship battles last a lot longer.
Developing a ship takes too much time especially for f2p players. You guys are right about trying something new ofc but it'll take a long time. I have 5 star reaper half-developed and took 3 months to develop. If i start bistan's now.....
My shard dominated by ITF, tie advanced and biggs ofc. I have to encounter most of the time with that setup. Sometimes different teams shows up and without a second thought im entering combat and usually i win.
Never won a single battle with a starting ship lost, never. Never lost a battle at start if i knocked out a ship, never.
Finishing payout in first 10 everyday. Now and before its not changed for me.Im not in a shard chat btw.
Maybe developers made a ''good development'' for the game i dont know. What i know is no pleasure for me in ship battles.Time will tell if im wrong or right.
Reaper and ITF was too powerfull.
Seems like more opinions pouring in that people don’t like ships 2.0, and still the same person/people attempting to devalue people’s opinions. Who said this was going in circles, you were dead right.
Unfornately people can't seem to get any further than saying they dislike fleet for reasons x y and z, but when reaons x y and z are questioned (not the opinion) they just keep repeating them. So yea, it's going in circles, but not because people are attempting to devalue opinions.
Disliking something for the wrong reasons is not going to help improve the game. If the devs adress the reasons you think are responsible for not liking fleet, but they're actually not the real reasons you don't like fleet, chances are you're still not going to like fleet.
realistically speaking there are also valid reasons to not like fleet, but simply hold no value for the devs. For example if you dislike the fact that the reaper got nerfed eventhough you just 7 starred it the other day. Valid reasons to not like the update, worthless opinion for the devs. I know it's a bit more nuanced than that, but you get the point.
Numerous people have already explained not only what they don't like but gone into great detail explaining how and why. It certainly is talking in a circle, partly because the same 3 or 4 people try to simply dismiss valid reasons for disliking Ships 2.0 based on a limited example of their own experience or some hypothetical situation hoped for in the future.
There is, as you point out, the frustration of having several hard to farm ships (and, by extension, their pilots) nerfed into near uselessness. Not only a frustration for Ships 2.0, but a concerning move of possible future tactics used to "balance" the game.
Many have gone into great detail to demonstrate the increase effects of RNG on the final outcome of the battle - as related to both smaller number of overall ships used and number of ships in the starting lineup. Many have also very clearly explained that this decrease in number of starting ships also reduces the player's ability to mitigate bad RNG . All are completely valid, and succinct arguments.
Many have also bemoaned the still remaining (despite being out almost a month now) lack of diversity. Indeed, I scan my top 50 and almost all are still running Vader/Biggs/TFP - the only "diversity" is a random Tie Silencer in place of TFP and there are a handful of Tarkin lead's - but still 90%+ Thrawn.
And we have barely begun to discuss how Ships 2.0 has negatively impacted the play in TW. How the persistent TM/cool down situation combined with only 3 starting ships actually benefits a fleet that has already been attacked, thus making any tactic of using multiple strong fleets to "wear down" an opponents fleet in TW, fairly useless.
Most of the polls and posts suggest that about 3/4 of the player base dislike Ships 2.0. Which obviously means that there are also a handful of those who do like it. And this not-so-nuanced attempt at suggesting that simply because 75%+ keep citing the same reasons, that they are just parroting "wrong" reasons is not only not the case, it is also insulting dismissive of their reasons (not just their opinions) - a reason I had taken the weekend to stop posting in this thread.
I fully understand that you, Nic and TVF are fine with Ships 2.0. Some of you think things will improve over time, in terms of diversity. Some defend the nerfs as a "necessary evil" in bringing game balance. And while it's true that you can mitigate RNG on your ships functionality, the fact of the matter is, until you can get the other 2k people in your fleet arena to stop running TFP or other RNG-reliant ships, RNG will still play a larger role in the outcome of the battle than under Ships 1.0 simply because you have fewer starting ships, thus less chance to mitigate a bad RNG break or two early on. Many of these issues are only exacerbated in fleet battles in TW - another disappointing realization for me and most of my guildmates (who are all basically launch players).
If you would like to have a meaningful discussion about the pitfalls of Ships 2.0 (or it's few positives) a suggestion - start by refraining from dismissing those opinions that you disagree with as "wrong" or coming from noobs - both of which you have done directly. Many of the people that don't like Ships 2.0 are launch players and people that have been playing for over two and half years. We are not noobs, nor are our reasons for disliking Ships 2.0 simply knee **** reactions to change. Many of us have long supported game changes and CG/EA in general. Many of us have been called shills in other threads and regarding other topics.
@Nikoms565
The only meaningful discussion in my opinion is a discussion that is actionable. Most of your 'essay' was just a lot of words about disliking ships 2.0. It's been established already ad nauseum that 75% of active forum members (which is less than 150 people per the poll at the time of this post) don't like 2.0. Maybe you can progress the dialogue. What would you like CG to do? If you can't answer that, then for what is the point of all the writing from you and 150 other people. Now I claim a bit of innocence here. You or others may have made suggestions on what to change, but I didn't read them. I've only recently ventured back to the forums, which for the most part I dislike. Nevertheless, the real dialogue starts once you make it known what should be changed. Otherwise, if I were CG, I'd just chalk up the whole lot of you as unactionable complaining, and dismiss it.
what an ugly thing to say... does this mean we're not friends anymore?
Ok. the amount of serious bugs that were not addressed in this months update has caused me to post. I was holding out as they’re all over the help section and Reddit.
1) reaper TM removal doesn’t work on offence look on Reddit for all the videos showing this. Also not noticed TM gain on arrival despite having that skill maxed. Waste of 75 reinforcement shards. Like wasting a zeta.
2) after thrawns big move the enemy capital ships cooldowns aren’t all increase by one as they often call a reinforcement straight away.
3) scimitar not applying target lock
I only had OG ships for a week before 2.0 came along but it hasn't changed much in my shard.
It's mostly Ghost/Phantom/Biggs with either Ackbar or Tarkin.
My biggs is barely useful as target lock rarely sticks with anything but Phantoms ability.
The AI seems to have no issues with target lock whatsoever though.
Oh and 4X speed is absolutely needed now too. Should have left the timer as it was, barely anybody is in a hurry to play fleet battles it seems so bottlenecks aren't a concern.
Oh and maybe do something with the fleet store too. RNG for stuff like Slave etc is diabolical. I haven't seen Scimitar in about a week.
Replies
1 question though, have you ever had a temporary lapse in judgement? Let's say you've downed a few too many beers and and hooked up with a super atractive girl (in your opinion at the time)? What would you consider that opinion of yours the next day when it turns out you actually snogged a mop? (rather extreme to make sure everyone understands it's a hypothetical scenario and didn't really happen to you)
I'd say you were wrong eventhough it was just your opinion.
Haha @leef
But honestly, there's no point. Dark_Light is being obstinate.
To the topic,on Ships 2.0, I've enjoyed myself in ships more now than at any other time in the game.
Since Ships 2.0, I have not dropped farther than rank 12. Usually I only drop to rank 8. I have found it much, much easier to take #1, and I place #1 most days. I only fight two people: the person who is in 4th or 5th (always Mol Eliza), and the person at #1 (always Kilum Natta). Most days, I only fight two battles. I have an effective method to beat both opponents, but it's dependent on target lock. If I don't land a target lock by the second hit, I lose. So while I take 1st most days, there are some days I have to use all five battles just to get into 4th or 5th. Mind you, I am doing the same thing every single time, and I'm having wildly varying results. This wasn't an issue in Ships 1.0. I might lose one battle, do it again, and win. I wouldn't lose 4 out of 5.
"Just change your ships!" Working on it, but as I've said, I'm on a 6 month old shard. My total fleet GP is about 500,000. I'm about to spend a month delaying farms I need for my guild and buying prestige mats instead so I can max out Executrix and get Home One into fighting shape. I just got Bistan's U-Wing to 3*. Umbaran is almost 7*, but Fives is only G9 and Mk3 carbantis are more precious than gold. I can't "just change ships" because I have nothing to change to yet, and the same is true for everyone around me. We're not really battling each other, trying to outfox each other; we're battling RNG. It's zero fun.
I have no problem working on my ships. I generally like ships. So I'm hoping the PVE table fixes my main issue: developing ships takes so many rare resources, making it painfully slow. I don't have enough ship credits to take the ships I'm working on up to level 85. Omega mats and prestige are rare. I'm still sitting on most of my reinforcement abilities, scared to spend them.
I want to like ships. I'm doing well in ships. But I don't like my ability to win being based on how the AI is feeling on a random Tuesday, and I don't like not having a way to develop my way out of that in a timely manner. That is my opinion. And my other opinion is that arguing in this thread about what qualifies as an opinion is dumb.
I actually look forward to change, but my point is that I am fighting mirror squads...with inferior stats and somehow losing. Strange things happen every battle (opposing Chimaera goes first 80% of the time, opposing ships having a crit-a-thon, magical dodges, etc). This happening much more than 1.0, and I thought that was too RNG-charged. This is nutty...and frustrating. It’s 1 battle and done now
I used to love Ships. I want to love it again, but this path doesn’t feel like it will magically get fun as I play with Genosians or whatever. I upgraded my core ships and reinforcements but I am waiting for some kind of “fix” before I do anything more. My guild mates are doing the same thing.
Edited to add quotes
Now its an argument about an argument about a definition of a word about ships 2.0
Okay, except that the ships rework is predicated on the 3 ship starting lineup. You can't have one without the other.
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/173047/capital-ship-challenges#latest
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/171776/capital-ship-challenge#latest
ships2.0 is garbage and should be go where it belongs, to the waste disposal site
i´m afraif the 7* challenges, the territory battle fights and the darksideTB special mission will be also unbeatable for many players, although they beated it easily in ships1.0
Unfornately people can't seem to get any further than saying they dislike fleet for reasons x y and z, but when reaons x y and z are questioned (not the opinion) they just keep repeating them. So yea, it's going in circles, but not because people are attempting to devalue opinions.
Disliking something for the wrong reasons is not going to help improve the game. If the devs adress the reasons you think are responsible for not liking fleet, but they're actually not the real reasons you don't like fleet, chances are you're still not going to like fleet.
realistically speaking there are also valid reasons to not like fleet, but simply hold no value for the devs. For example if you dislike the fact that the reaper got nerfed eventhough you just 7 starred it the other day. Valid reasons to not like the update, worthless opinion for the devs. I know it's a bit more nuanced than that, but you get the point.
This.
It takes 4 times more time than before and is the worst game experience here since whose Poe goes first flipcoin two years ago.
There's really no point in talking. There's no dialogue, even though you are attempting to dialogue. It just goes in one ear and out the other for almost everyone hear, and then everyone doubles down on their position and repeats themselves. One big giant circle to nowhere. Worse, and you're onto something, there's not one suggested change the devs can even consider in ships 2.0 from this thread. I posted a note that I understood those who dislike ships 2.0 and the reasons why a couple pages or so back. I mean, I understand where they're coming from, but understanding isn't what they want. I'm beginning to think they just need to vent, and this is the place for them to unload after all their bad experiences, even if self inflicted. I would say keep up the good fight, but here, I think you should just let it go. Nothing you say will make any difference, however unfortunate that may be.
It seems itf is not working correctly.
Numerous people have already explained not only what they don't like but gone into great detail explaining how and why. It certainly is talking in a circle, partly because the same 3 or 4 people try to simply dismiss valid reasons for disliking Ships 2.0 based on a limited example of their own experience or some hypothetical situation hoped for in the future.
There is, as you point out, the frustration of having several hard to farm ships (and, by extension, their pilots) nerfed into near uselessness. Not only a frustration for Ships 2.0, but a concerning move of possible future tactics used to "balance" the game.
Many have gone into great detail to demonstrate the increase effects of RNG on the final outcome of the battle - as related to both smaller number of overall ships used and number of ships in the starting lineup. Many have also very clearly explained that this decrease in number of starting ships also reduces the player's ability to mitigate bad RNG . All are completely valid, and succinct arguments.
Many have also bemoaned the still remaining (despite being out almost a month now) lack of diversity. Indeed, I scan my top 50 and almost all are still running Vader/Biggs/TFP - the only "diversity" is a random Tie Silencer in place of TFP and there are a handful of Tarkin lead's - but still 90%+ Thrawn.
And we have barely begun to discuss how Ships 2.0 has negatively impacted the play in TW. How the persistent TM/cool down situation combined with only 3 starting ships actually benefits a fleet that has already been attacked, thus making any tactic of using multiple strong fleets to "wear down" an opponents fleet in TW, fairly useless.
Most of the polls and posts suggest that about 3/4 of the player base dislike Ships 2.0. Which obviously means that there are also a handful of those who do like it. And this not-so-nuanced attempt at suggesting that simply because 75%+ keep citing the same reasons, that they are just parroting "wrong" reasons is not only not the case, it is also insulting dismissive of their reasons (not just their opinions) - a reason I had taken the weekend to stop posting in this thread.
I fully understand that you, Nic and TVF are fine with Ships 2.0. Some of you think things will improve over time, in terms of diversity. Some defend the nerfs as a "necessary evil" in bringing game balance. And while it's true that you can mitigate RNG on your ships functionality, the fact of the matter is, until you can get the other 2k people in your fleet arena to stop running TFP or other RNG-reliant ships, RNG will still play a larger role in the outcome of the battle than under Ships 1.0 simply because you have fewer starting ships, thus less chance to mitigate a bad RNG break or two early on. Many of these issues are only exacerbated in fleet battles in TW - another disappointing realization for me and most of my guildmates (who are all basically launch players).
If you would like to have a meaningful discussion about the pitfalls of Ships 2.0 (or it's few positives) a suggestion - start by refraining from dismissing those opinions that you disagree with as "wrong" or coming from noobs - both of which you have done directly. Many of the people that don't like Ships 2.0 are launch players and people that have been playing for over two and half years. We are not noobs, nor are our reasons for disliking Ships 2.0 simply knee **** reactions to change. Many of us have long supported game changes and CG/EA in general. Many of us have been called shills in other threads and regarding other topics.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
I think "Investigate and possibly retune RNG around target lock, AI crit hits, and enemy dodges" is a solid action item for the devs that would help 75% of the complaints here. So is retuning the daily challenges for capital ships 5* and below - those should be completable by players who don't really give a fig about ships since they're the gate to zeta mats. And investigating potential bugs. And per my critique, ensuring we have enough resources to develop ships in a timely manner (for example, if the upcoming PVE table won't provide ample ship-building materials, perhaps a credit heist equivalent should be created). All of that just to make Ships 2.0 playable for a larger portion of the player base.
Then there's the suggestion that's been there all along: add new ships. Preferably ones not locked behind a paywall for a couple of months like Lando's ****. Surely some new ones are coming with the PVE table? But we still don't know much about the PVE table, so we don't know if our wants and concerns are being addressed or not.
I think people would like to give more specific constructive criticism (would fleet battles be better if you could reinforce immediately? Could certain synergies be made more effective? Biggs is OP; should he be dialed back 10% or 50% or not at all?) but there's a lot that's too broken or up in the air right now to know where to start.
I totally agree with all of this, and I am a seasoned player (albeit F2P - since 2015).
However changing certain words in your post could easily make the argument as to why TLJ is a bad SW movie too - just something fun I played with in my head when reading your post, lol - so you are right on so many levels!
Allow me to paraphrase the Ships 2.0 issues in more summary to help the dialogue.
1) 3v3. It adds more impact to RNG that was mitigated by 5v5
Response : I'm honestly indifferent to whether we run 3v3 or 5v5. Either way, I'll find a way to win. I do agree that under 3v3 RNG plays a larger role, and for me I'm ok with that. I have found ways to mitigate the impact of RNG. But I understand the idea that less RNG is better from 75% of active forum members. If CG brings back 5 ships, I wouldn't care either way.
2) Rng plays too big of a role
Response:I think RNG is fine. But I understand those running mirror matches have greater levels of frustration,. My only comment, what do you expect? If everyone runs the exact same thing, of course RNG will be the deciding factor.
3) The rebalancing of ships picked winners and losers (i.e. Repear)
Response: some say change is inevitable in a healthy game, but in my opinion, I'd have rather not had any changes to ships, because fundamentally I disagree with nerfs of any kind. With that said, I believe CG had to make wholesale changes because the ships 2.0 was was a significant upgrade, and required rebalancing to be effective.
4) Balancing issues for challenges and TW
Response: I'm ok with this request: maybe fine-tuning is needed to keep integrity of game intact.
5) Bugs
Response : this is not a ships 2.0 issue. It's a standing issue.
6) Lack of Resources for Reinforcement material ( I assume ship omegas too)
Response: I'm indifferent.
7) Lack of diversity and new ships
Response: I firmly believe more ships are coming. My only comment? Patience.
8) Reinforce immediately
Response: I'm indifferent, so long as it's fair.
9) Biggs is OP
Response: I disagree with nerfs of any kind.
In total summary, the largest issue from this list is RNG, balancing challenges and TW. And when it comes to rng, I'm a minority position that says stop running mirror matches and you can control rng better. Wai.
A request to CG from me would be only to look into rebalancing issues on challenges and TW, the rest of ships 2.0 is fine, although I'm a minority here on these forums.
In 5vs5 starting, reinforcement abilities would hardly play a role and the whole ship system would have to be "rebalanced" (not saying that it's well balanced now) to make them meaningful. Let's be realistic, this in not going to happen.
There are two aspects affecting the impact of RNG, I mean look at squad arena. Mirror matches do also depend on RNG there but often not as much and it's not just because of mods. Has anyone ever complained that "I can't auto myself up to 1st place in arena because of bloody RNG"? If there is little strategy involved and the AI follows a more or less similar attack strategy like most players, mirror matches are dominated by RNG. Ship battles are less intricate than squad battles for several reasons, maybe 3vs3 adds to that problem, I don't know. Anyway, there are two solutions. First, try to come up with strategies using the existing ships (some have been posted) even though I admit that this doesn't work on a short term base for most of us that don't have a wide variety of ships and pilots maxed. Second, adding more complexity (e.g. faction synergies, "wing leader" abilites, whatever) or somehow creating situations where the standard AI move is much worse than what smart players would do.
I'm not! The time it takes to max the abilities of a ship (or even worse capitol ship) is currently ridiculously high. There is no room for experimenting with lineups if it takes a month to get the abilities of a single ship maxed and that is what often matters considering the bonus progression.
That would be like a 4vs4 and make reinforcement abilities a lot more relevant, considering that my battles are usually decided by the time the AI gets to call the first reinforcement. It would also require some balancing adjustments since a lot of ships are very good in starting lineup and have a great reinforcement ability (Biggs, Vader, etc.). I can think of some combinations that are not "healthy" and could in fact make ship battles last a lot longer.
My shard dominated by ITF, tie advanced and biggs ofc. I have to encounter most of the time with that setup. Sometimes different teams shows up and without a second thought im entering combat and usually i win.
Never won a single battle with a starting ship lost, never. Never lost a battle at start if i knocked out a ship, never.
Finishing payout in first 10 everyday. Now and before its not changed for me.Im not in a shard chat btw.
Maybe developers made a ''good development'' for the game i dont know. What i know is no pleasure for me in ship battles.Time will tell if im wrong or right.
Reaper and ITF was too powerfull.
@Nikoms565
The only meaningful discussion in my opinion is a discussion that is actionable. Most of your 'essay' was just a lot of words about disliking ships 2.0. It's been established already ad nauseum that 75% of active forum members (which is less than 150 people per the poll at the time of this post) don't like 2.0. Maybe you can progress the dialogue. What would you like CG to do? If you can't answer that, then for what is the point of all the writing from you and 150 other people. Now I claim a bit of innocence here. You or others may have made suggestions on what to change, but I didn't read them. I've only recently ventured back to the forums, which for the most part I dislike. Nevertheless, the real dialogue starts once you make it known what should be changed. Otherwise, if I were CG, I'd just chalk up the whole lot of you as unactionable complaining, and dismiss it.
LOL... Fair enough, but not likely.
1) reaper TM removal doesn’t work on offence look on Reddit for all the videos showing this. Also not noticed TM gain on arrival despite having that skill maxed. Waste of 75 reinforcement shards. Like wasting a zeta.
2) after thrawns big move the enemy capital ships cooldowns aren’t all increase by one as they often call a reinforcement straight away.
3) scimitar not applying target lock
So come one. Fix it please.
Turuk
It's mostly Ghost/Phantom/Biggs with either Ackbar or Tarkin.
My biggs is barely useful as target lock rarely sticks with anything but Phantoms ability.
The AI seems to have no issues with target lock whatsoever though.
Oh and 4X speed is absolutely needed now too. Should have left the timer as it was, barely anybody is in a hurry to play fleet battles it seems so bottlenecks aren't a concern.
Oh and maybe do something with the fleet store too. RNG for stuff like Slave etc is diabolical. I haven't seen Scimitar in about a week.