CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
118
   |
Posted - 2014.02.07 18:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
Judge's video here, and other players threads elsewhere recently, highlight an issue I'd like to re-iterate:
"Balance" is something CCP rightfully wants to acheive.
 I think it is acheived in EVE Online through the elaborate earning and layering of modules onto an already-costly spaceship, to create a anxiety of "RISK" that never goes away in the players' minds. To address the very real threat of RISK, players in EVE Online (yes, RE-layer their modules, but also) choose what vehicles to invest in the engagement, and knit intense team-strategy with other players as their way of minimizing the risk of loss while in that engagement.
 The "Waves of Opportunity" balancing idea in Dust tries to achieve "balance" by forcing any vehicle-player to WITHDRAW from play, not simply "retreat" around a building while remaining in play. CCP refers to the behavior as having to "retreat", but as Judge makes clear, Retreat and Withdraw don't mean the same thing.
Every time the "waves" balancing effect forces a withdraw, it is forcing a player OUT OF THE GAME, eliminating the player from team-play and team effectiveness. (I have mentioned before how my efforts to provide support in an engagement are lost because my cooldown periods and resulting vulnerability to hostile AV remove me so long from the fight that most fights have to end without my participation).
We as CONSOLE players are "agressively resourceful" in our games, so many of us soon "compensate" for the problem by abandoning team-participation altogether, and coming up with loner behavior such as redlining with our vehicles, or racetrack-driving-while-shooting-on-the-run throughout the entire match... the heck with winning null objectives anymore.
It has created a "BATTLE-map" full of vehicle-operators who look for ways to shoot from "OUTSIDE the battle", "without GETTING IN the battle", "without risking their vehicles as a PART of the battle and PART of our team for any usefull length of time".
"Balancing" in Dust shouldn't be attempted by constraining the modules/fittings, or forcing "retreat" cycles. It has to involve shaping the "Behavior" of the players. We're not EVE-Online, we're a genetic offshoot called Dust (and proud of it!).
Judge's review touches a little on my suggestion: readjust the gameplay so that 'RISK' is the only constant thing every player is forced to address, no matter WHERE she squats on the map. Dust is about Team-interaction and about Risking your assets if you want to engage hostiles and win.
Shape players' behavioral choices so that:
-- if she wants to risk her for a close and lenghty engagement with her vehicle, Celesta can do so only by investing in the juicy protective accessories, and investing in tighter coordination with her teammates.
-- if she wants to provide support from afar and reduce her Risk (never effectively escaping risk), the game should "counterbalance" Celesta by SUBSTANTIALLY limiting her ability to reach hostiles offensively, limiting her ability to influence the gameplay in any way except protecting her cornered friendlies in a desperate redline defense, and limiting her opportunities to collect points for herself.
Don't "balance" us by sending us away from the fight every 60 seconds. We'll only respond by modfying our behavior to invent loopholes of imbalance. Balance us by making us meet the appropriate requirements for being closeup in the fight, and appropriate "nerfing" consequences for keeping a distance in the fight,... but never let us excel from OUTSIDE the fight.
|