|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Vell0cet
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
553
   |
Posted - 2013.11.16 20:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
I apologize for not reading the full thread, I suspect this idea may have been mentioned, but I wanted to post it here for consideration in case it wasnGÇÖt brought up.
First I agree with new players having 0 cap until some level is established (somewhere around 2-5 million SP).
Next I would like to see a decay mechanism implemented for the SP rollover. You have your weekly SP pool that can benefit from boosters as well as a bank that (a. either canGÇÖt be boosted, or b. can be boosted with a different booster that has a reduced maybe 1.3x active SP). Every week the unused weekly SP is dumped into the bank and all SP in the bank is reduced by some percent (say -20%). Your weekly pool will be drained first, and only until you cap out will you start to burn through your banked SP. Events would only affect the weekly SP and not any banked SP.
This system has the benefit of rewarding/incentivizing regular gameplay, but giving people who have taken a break an increased incentive to return and play to help catch up. The following is an example of someone who takes a 8 week vacation from DUST with a 20% decay rate:
Week 1: 190,000 Weekly SP not used
Week 2: 190,000 Weekly SP not used 190,000 banked, 0 SP destroyed
Week 3: 190,000 Weekly SP not used 342,000 banked, 38,000 SP destroyed
Week 4: 190,000 Weekly SP not used 463,600 banked, 68,400 SP destroyed
Week 5: 190,000 Weekly SP not used 560,880 banked, 92,720 SP destroyed
Week 6: 190,000 Weekly SP not used 638,704 banked, 112,176 SP destroyed
Week 7: 190,000 Weekly SP not used 700,963 banked, 127,741 SP destroyed
Week 8: 190,000 Weekly SP not used 750,771 banked, 146,193 SP destroyed
Week 9: 190,000 Weekly SP IS USED, 790,616 in bank, 150,154 SP will be destroyed if bank isnGÇÖt depleted
LetGÇÖs assume the player takes a week off work and grinds up her weekly SP plus her full banked SP. She will have 980,616 SP from the weekly SP + the baked SP. If she had capped out every week she would have 1,710,000 SP over those same 9 weeks (excluding boosters). I think this is a reasonable gap that is enough to incentivize play without punishing people who miss a week or two very harshly, but still allow for players to catch up a significant amount of SP when they come back.
Quick/Dirty Test Range Idea
|
Vell0cet
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
560
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 21:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
So I finished reading everything and I have some concerns about some of the proposals:
Cap is based on highest playerGÇÖs cap.
The problem with is is we essentially have 2 groups: (a)those who are pushing the cap forward every week and (b)everyone else. The first group represents the most hardcore players (who are most likely to be buying boosters). Only one player from this group needs to run boosters to move the soft cap forward each week, the rest can simply grind (at a slightly slower pace) un-boosted to catch up with the leader each week. So CCP would be killing their revenue from a huge chunk of the players most likely to be paying them. The second group essentially has no cap at all (practically speaking) so they have no penalty for not logging in. I know I personally would take a lot more breaks if I knew I could catch up later and not be missing out on SP. I would probably have half the SP I currently have now under such a system, whereas the current system incentivizes regular play. I donGÇÖt think IGÇÖm alone, and there are probably many people who wouldnGÇÖt bother to log in if they know theyGÇÖre not loosing out on potential SP, like they currently are.
There are other suggestions that want to accelerate the rate of SP gain under various circumstances.
I have 2 problems with this. The first is that it de-values the effort already put in by players with a lot of SP. They had to spend hundreds of hours to get where they are, and itGÇÖs kind of a slap in the face if the same could be achieved in a small fraction of the time. Another issue with this is that the system actually incentivizes NOT playing. Why would I want to grind now at some slow rate, when I could simply wait and be more GÇ£productiveGÇ¥ later (with each in-game minute generating much more SP for me)? Furthermore, if people cap quicker with a system thatGÇÖs accelerating their gameplay, then theyGÇÖre playing fewer matches every week which means that number of concurrent users will plummet. If that number gets too low (I donGÇÖt know what the threshold is), the matchmaker will really start to struggle, which will cause more people to leave and we will have a downward spiral clusterf*ck that would kill the game.
I think the fear of loss is a powerful motivator that keeps people playing each week despite stale gameplay, frustrating mechanics, and other issues. The game needs to be so interesting that people want to log-in and play because they enjoy the gameplay. I think most of us are only doing it for the SP right now, knowing that our early struggles will pay off years later when there is a high population, fun gameplay and we have the skills to make the most of it. I think any rollover system needs to be realistic about these motivations, and the state of the game. IGÇÖve had a hard time making myself cap out since 1.6 with the horrible TTK, AR + scanner + GÇÿnade spam.
ThatGÇÖs why, after reading the full thread, IGÇÖm convinced that my proposal of a decaying weekly bank is the way to go. People still have a fear of loss since they will loose SP from their bank if they donGÇÖt use it, but the nature of a percentage-based decay rate is the penalty is small if you keep your banked SP low, but significant if you let it get too big (eventually hitting equilibrium with the incoming weekly SP to create a hard cap on the banked SP pool size). This incentivizes REGULAR weekly participation, without punishing people who take a week or two off very harshly. It also lets players who have stepped away for many months to return with a generous pool (but not unlimited) to help them catch back up, and to incentivize buying a GÇ£Banked SP Booster,GÇ¥ which helps fund development.
Quick/Dirty Test Range Idea
|
Vell0cet
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
576
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 03:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
Shijima Kuraimaru wrote:Draco Cerberus wrote:Shijima Kuraimaru wrote:Nova Knife wrote:Shijima Kuraimaru wrote:
The cap is there because the game is about an investment of time and effort and how it will affect the Eve/Dust universe, not the CoD unlock everything in a week KDR ***** ideology.
Actually no. The cap is here because progression is literally the only content CCP has to offer us right now. Without a cap, people will run out of 'stuff to do' after a few months and then retention will suffer. With actual content, progression becomes secondary and a cap is no longer needed. Alright then Mister CPM, if I'm wrong, explain how CCP intends to keep to the plan that maxing out a character, once we have all the intended skills, should take about six years. If there is no cap, then there will be people who do nothing but live on Dust maxing out their characters in about six months instead. As for running out of stuff to do, as you put it, we ran out of "stuff to do" after we played each of the contract types for the first time. I'm still here because it's still fun and I have made friends that I enjoy teaming with. Part of building a game like Dust is continuation of the release new stuff. November 19, 2013 marked the release of several new items in Eve Online. The Mobile Tractor Unit for Salvagers that pulls wrecks to the module and loots them into a common container to be picked up after salvaging a site or complex. The SOE frigates and cruisers which happen to be the only T1 hulls in game that are able to use Covert Ops Cloaking devices as well as Covert Ops (may just be the regular type) Cynosural Field Generators. There are also several more items that have been added for lots of cool things to do and new ways to exploit other players. There are lots of ways to increase the number of skills needed to play the game, all it takes is adding a new module needing X new skill to use. For a new weapon we need new skills for a new dropsuit we need a new skill for a new vehicle type we need a new skill. This concept of a game as a service involves constant development, constant testing and an ever changing gameplay surface that will be (should-be) constantly filled with fresh game play styles and new ways to have fun and destroy other players and their assets as well as cheat them, ruin them and get rich or die trying! Welcome to New Eden. That's all well and good and I understand that... New content is always good and I won't argue with you about that. But this isn't about content. It has still not been explained as to how CCP could keep to their plan that maxing out a character, once we have all the intended skills, should take about six years. Yes, Eve gets a few new skills over ten years, but not many Most new modules/ships use already existing skills. If we go by a "no SP cap" model that many people are clamoring for, Dust will have to have thousands of skills to support such a system with an intended six year plan to fully master all skills.
I think you're misunderstanding the six (I thought they said seven) year plan. They don't want anyone to ever max out. They picked six years because it's beyond our ability to reach for a long time. I fully expect more SP sinks to come over the years so that it's never mathematically possible to have it all.
Quick/Dirty Test Range Idea
|
Vell0cet
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
576
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 03:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dbukalski1 wrote:a topic i started about new player experience https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1514164#post1514164as for what has already been discussed. Increasing the SP cap isnt going to change much, Ill still sit in the MCC and gather 5sp/sec of in game time. For me to play the game and get wrecked by proto players over and over again I need to see a big increase in WP gained in battle. Currently I struggle to get 700WP which is a drop in the bucket compared to the 400k I get per week through passives/logging on and being in battle. As is I have no interest in joining battle as outlined in my topic. Not for 700wp. If on the other hand players below a certain SP level were given a big boost to their WP that could change. Its very difficult to kill anyone as a new player. Im talking like 200wp for a kill and 100 for hacking turrets and such. Otherwise the aggravation of battle is too high compared to the reward.
Improved matchmaking and an optional second tier academy up to 2-5 million SP is a better solution than catering to players who are impatient/entitled and want to AFK their SP. CCP also needs to fix AFKing (seriously, just check to see if the output from the controllers are constant, how hard is that?).
Quick/Dirty Test Range Idea
|
|
|
| |
|