Star Conflict

[RoninaThorstone]

While bumming around steam I finally found a new space sim to sate my star lust. For those who played moonbreakers while waiting for star citizen, this will help bridge the gap far better than that. Star conflict has pvp AND pve. So far I've seen two modes of PVP. Death match (when you die. You are dead for the round) and 'arcade' where you respawn like in a MMO battle ground. The pve follows the death match rules, when you die you are dead for the round.
Combat is like freelancer. Mouse friendly, straightforward, really quick to pick up and play. The UI is also very clear. The 3d map is great. Finding it hard to complain about anything.
Here's a MMOhut first look.

[Nirawen]

I played it for a few days and did enjoy it. Gameplays fun, loved the faction/ship specific abilities and loadout options, and the controls are as tight as Freelancer but I did find it repetitive after a short while (then again all space sims are repetitive, so more of a personal thing).

Also; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...=star+conflict

[MMKing]

I played it but i feel that the business model is damaging the product. Double money reward is pretty much mandatory unless you are a very skilled player. You see, having your ship destroyed costs money. Not that much, you will generally make more per round than you have to pay in repairs. You also have to purchase missiles.

The problem lies in the reward - expenses = Disposable cash to spend on upgrades.

Example: 40 000 - 20 000 = 20 000
less dying means lower expenses, more dying means less expenses.

Using real life money in order to double your reward output will dramatically increase your disposable cash. In addition, the first tier of upgrades is very cheap, but the second and third tier of upgrades costs are astronomical in comparison. Combined with the ships increasing in tiers, the players paying for advantages are always miles ahead in comparison.

Arguments can be made either way that this is in fact a pay to win business model. On one part, you will eventually grind your way to the point where you can have 1 single ship on par with paying players. Yet i cannot emphasize eventually enough.

On the other hand, speeding up progress is usually an acceptable form of making money for a free to play game. But the degree of which the progress is speed up is way to high. Tier 1 is cheap, tier 2 is extremely expensive in comparison and tier 3 items needs to be unlocked via 6 different reputation factions. Or you can purchase tier 3 items with real life money.

[RoninaThorstone]

I played it but i feel that the business model is damaging the product. Double money reward is pretty much mandatory unless you are a very skilled player. You see, having your ship destroyed costs money. Not that much, you will generally make more per round than you have to pay in repairs. You also have to purchase missiles.

The problem lies in the reward - expenses = Disposable cash to spend on upgrades.

Example: 40 000 - 20 000 = 20 000
less dying means lower expenses, more dying means less expenses.

Using real life money in order to double your reward output will dramatically increase your disposable cash. In addition, the first tier of upgrades is very cheap, but the second and third tier of upgrades costs are astronomical in comparison. Combined with the ships increasing in tiers, the players paying for advantages are always miles ahead in comparison.

Arguments can be made either way that this is in fact a pay to win business model. On one part, you will eventually grind your way to the point where you can have 1 single ship on par with paying players. Yet i cannot emphasize eventually enough.

You get 5,000 credits for logging in on the first day, 10,000 the second day, ect ect ect.

Repairs are about 250 per death.

Also, finding gear after a match is definitely the most cost efficient way to get gear.
Also you get a X2 bonus for your first win of the day.
And 5000 credits a win is pretty common.

[Nirawen]

I wouldn't say it's pay to win, you can pay for a time advantage by buying a ship for a tier but the grind doesn't really get bad until about T4 I found. I had money ready to buy and loadout a ship all the way up to the end of T3, doing the PvE missions can help save some cash through the drops especially after the recent-ish buff to PvE.

My first issue would be the balancing over the tiers. Not so much certain things being overpowered, although it does happen at certain tiers (I remember Federation sniper firgates being annoying in T2), but more that certain things become semi-useless and others get huge boosts when entering a new tier. It does make going through the tiers varied but your favourite weapon type or playstyle can become almost obsolete and you won't know until you've paid for a ship & equipment.

[MMKing]

You get 5,000 credits for logging in on the first day, 10,000 the second day, ect ect ect.

Repairs are about 250 per death.

Also, finding gear after a match is definitely the most cost efficient way to get gear.
Also you get a X2 bonus for your first win of the day.
And 5000 credits a win is pretty common.

The difference increases as you advance in tiers.

[Slaughty8]

This game is too much Pay 2 Win or you are behind, veeery behind

[RoninaThorstone]

This game is too much Pay 2 Win or you are behind, veeery behind

then i guess its a good thing you get cash currency for logging in several days in a row.

[Orange Joe]

then i guess its a good thing you get cash currency for logging in several days in a row.

That doesn't change what it is. P2W is P2W.

[Nirawen]

That doesn't change what it is. P2W is P2W.

You're unable to buy anything that's more powerful or even different to what you unlock through gameplay, its just a slightly faster option to get exactly the same ships and equipment and it barely makes any difference before T4. That's not P2W.

[RoninaThorstone]

That doesn't change what it is. P2W is P2W.

Then I guess its a good thing that it's not p2w.