|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
337
   |
Posted - 2014.01.26 17:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is looking really good IWS!
I endorse this product and/or service. |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.02.02 02:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Terry Webber wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Ronan Elsword wrote:Looks good so far although I think the Tutorial should be based on what race you chose, and the person instructing you should be a cloned soldier that's just called Commander, Sir, something along those lines in the race you chose. The academy missions has a chance to be racially specced instead. The idea is to drive home the notion that there are many nations and calling but you're free to wander and dont have to stick to one place. You make a good point but how does that explain the racial NPC corporations new players currently start in? As the intro mission npc explains, hes a contracted mercenary there to convert your mortal self into an immortal soldier. This is done to help reduce voice costs and the like. The academy missions hand you back over to your empires where voice acting is not needed nor scripted AI.
Aye, that would be the less costly option to develop.
But to be honest, you can't deny that it WOULD be ideal to have racial variations for these tutorials; it just provides so much more immersion to a new player. It makes a bit more "new player sense" to go from creating an Amarr avatar to doing a mission under Amarrian supervisors in an Amarrian dropship, because that's what you picked...
CCP is technically a AAA development studio (Dust was marketed as a AAA F2P shooter  ).
But, having said that, with what I've seen CCP put on the table since beta? Yeah no, that's not going to happen. Not anytime soon.
With those depressing facts taken into consideration, it makes complete sense to just focus on one well crafted tutorial. But in that case all the races should be represented instead of just the Caldari, at least in terms of infantry (did I read something about using other new players as actors in the opening sequence with the craft flying you to the battle? If so, kudos; that would be good use of instancing).
Again, this (your ideas) all looks great on paper. I just wish it was actually happening right now...  |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.02.02 13:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Ghost Kaisar wrote:Skill Tree 2.0 looks fantastic. I'm loving how this will look in the future (if it will be somewhat like this). eWar seems more prevalent (those skills in Electronics look mouth watering. It seems like we will have ways of reducing module effectiveness on suits in combat. Be a great way to stunt armor regen, or even slow down a speed scout.) I like how module skills can decrease their fitting cost. Biotics especially (15PG for a complex Kincat FFS). Also, having Shield modules reduce the CPU required and Armor reduce the PG required seems like a good move as well since Shield suits typically have higher CPU and Armor suits typically have higher PG. This might allow some dual tanking (which isn't bad necessarily), but I have a feeling that shield hardeners and armor hardeners will negate this (Making it a better move to buff your main tank rather than dual tank) I see the shield repair tools. I really hope this is where we are headed. I see a HUGE amount of diversity in this thing. And I want Dust to have an EXTREMELY Diverse battlefield. Decoy and Jamming equipment? My scout is in love! Jetpacks and Grappling hooks? Okay, I'll stop here. This all looks great, and I really hope that this will all be down the road in the next few years. But it does look like we are headed in the right direction. If 1.8 becomes as good as it's hyped to be, I'll take the $60 I have saved up for Destiny and buy some AUR. You guys will have earned it  That's just a first pass I haven't done any deep level thinking and philosophy with the skills. Of course this all ideas and there is no guarantee any of this will make it in.
I did a bit of community idea sourcing - just on the structure itself - a while back.
There's a bunch of ideas collected in that thread from various players, and I'm happy to report it's one of the more civil threads on this forum. |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.02.05 03:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Well here is my initial thoughts on the arrangement of the skills.
Near the start or base of the tree you will have what you will be calling your core skills. Skills that translates into higher game play on base stats alone.
This facilitates a few things.
Empowers newer players to be more effective in areas they feel is lacking if they're reactive trainers (lack of hp, lack of damage application, lack of fitting, lack of speed ect ect)
As the tree grows the skills begin to shift from a broad spectrum of built in stats to specific performances of the character then finally shifting into broad spectrum of modules before continuously narrowing down until only a very specific type of module or weapon benefits.
The bonuses themselves need to be from most pronounced to least pronounced. For example its okay for an HP+ skill to be near the start but HP+ on shield extenders is not an 'end-game' skill. So instead there are more likely to be skills that help reduce the negativity of some modules such as the high fitting costs, the heavier plate penalties and drawbacks of tech 2 modules.
The power gains at 'end-game' are also marginal; the idea is to not make the peak so far well and beyond a new players 'influence' (IE I have max skills = newb immunity) and this is where handing out bonuses out like candy can and WILL get problematic.
Would you agree that the "support" skills (skills with big bonuses to damage, range, fitting requirement, ammo capacity) should be in a more accessible and separate part of the weaponry tree?
Building the "core" for infantry weapons would primarily be training these skills. They don't unlock weapons, but they affect all weapons, and they unlock the relevant modules (damage mods, range mods, etc...).
I keep coming back to the question of whether or not the range bonus on the old sharpshooter skill was really an issue, or if it was just the fact that you had to train it two to six times that made it "broken".
Maybe it was that, and the fact that you had to virtually run towards one another until the one with superior range skills got into range and won. The old "all or nothing" damage model isn't used anymore, so perhaps it wouldn't hurt to reintroduce it. Perhaps it would revitalize the meta a bit?
It's one of those occasions where CCP can give players another meta tool to help solve their own perceived balance problems. e.g. the general opinion is that the shotgun's range is so ridiculously low, to the point of "worthlessness", but what if you could fit a module or two and train a skill to buff the range by a combined 50-60%? Some will bicker about sacrificing damage mods, but just that mechanic alone creates meaningful choice: Do I fit for longer range engagements, or do I YOLO for damage?
Same story for the laser rifle. What if you could choose between fitting damage modules and range modules? People would create fittings based on the maps and how they play.
Basically DUST needs more variety in modules; more stats to play with; more fitting decisions to make, ideally using incomparables.
Just a stray thought. |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.02.05 21:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:
Anyways as for the skills and the sorts, I know why the range bonus was removed was because at max level the gun would have immunity to a newbie and was making for poor gameplay similar to how proto stomping works. It is still possible to see the mechanic return though not for most weapons (swarm launcher being the only one right now knowing that bumping its range works okay still) but in the form of increasing the optimal slice.
I'd argue that the poor gameplay was having to run towards one another until one side finally gets into range, not that one side had a range advantage to begin with; that last part still happens now, just with rail rifles and snipers. The act of having to abandon cover to close a few meters so your bullets didn't magically disappear was the real issue. The maps seemed to relish in abusing this: remember the roof parts of those warehouse junctions? An AR without sharpshooter could not reach the roof without moving right up to it, but a maxed sharpshooter just barely could, and from much safer cover without as much return fire.
The range skills only exasperated the underlying issue: that weapons in DUST have amazingly poor range across the board to begin with. That issue was alleviated with the advent of effective range, and as a result there is much less range immunity these days. Hence little reason not to reintroduce an important alternative to damage modules.
 |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
342
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 01:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:J-Lewis wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:
Anyways as for the skills and the sorts, I know why the range bonus was removed was because at max level the gun would have immunity to a newbie and was making for poor gameplay similar to how proto stomping works. It is still possible to see the mechanic return though not for most weapons (swarm launcher being the only one right now knowing that bumping its range works okay still) but in the form of increasing the optimal slice.
I'd argue that the poor gameplay was having to run towards one another until one side finally gets into range, not that one side had a range advantage to begin with; that last part still happens now, just with rail rifles and snipers. The act of having to abandon cover to close a few meters so your bullets didn't magically disappear was the real issue. The maps seemed to relish in abusing this: remember the roof parts of those warehouse junctions? An AR without sharpshooter could not reach the roof without moving right up to it, but a maxed sharpshooter just barely could, and from much safer cover without as much return fire. The range skills only exasperated the underlying issue: that weapons in DUST have amazingly poor range across the board to begin with. That issue was alleviated with the advent of effective range, and as a result there is much less range immunity these days. Hence little reason not to reintroduce an important alternative to damage modules. This can be addressed with better designs (for give them similar max ranges (which they do closer) and adjust where their optimals are(max damage) just right now the gaps are very drastic on purpose because there are not enough entries in the necessary engagement envelopes. It something more guns will help fix or variants and customization.
As long as more guns doesn't entail adding 7 million SP and 5 skills per gun (as currently) I'm all ears.
|
|
|
| |
|