DUST Search - Sticky:[DISCUSSION]

Himiko Kuronaga wrote:

...Matchmaking should be good, but not at the expense of the powerful versus not powerful struggle.

You're trying to flip the "mass appeal" switch and sacrifice good gameplay for popularity (and in the office this translates to dollar signs). It won't work, your game isn't as polished as Titanfall or COD and knowing your development process it's never going to be. You pump out updates too fast, and your team is too small. I'm sorry, those are the facts. The casuals will see your game, and think "Oh, well this game is alright... Titanfall is better though" and they won't come back. They have no vested interest in Dust, EVE, and they won't have an interest in Legion either. The production value is what they care about, and it simply isn't there.

Its core appeal is to a Machiavellian playerbase who ignores these facts because it allows them to live out a power fantasy regarding taking away other peoples toys and griefing those who are not in a strong position to defend themselves. If you try to build your game the other way and ignore these basic New Eden principles -- instead making fights "fair" -- you will pretty much just create another, lesser version of every other game in existence.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 28 post(s)
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 112	Posted - 2014.05.14 15:45:00 - [1] - Quote tl;dr: Only the new player, high security experience needs simplicity. I don't have a question for CCP Z, as much as a statement of my own preference, which bears upon his choices for designing Legion's character progression. Massive character inequality isn't a problem. Whether in terms of wealth or abilities or combat effectiveness. Some people will try to tell you, CCP Z that these inequalities are a huge problem. They generally aren't. They become a problem only if they are achieved through paying money (pay-to-win) instead of by playing an excellent game really well. Pay very close attention to the dynamic of the Eve Online sandbox, where the most active players are really your partners in creating emergent game play for the rest of your customers; where those creators of emergent game play aren't your monetization targets. Pay attention to the way some customers who hate grinding for isk subsidize the play (through the plex system) of those who perform services for other players for isk. That could be poorly described as one group of players functioning as the "slaves" of another group of players. In reality its CCP designing Eve Online so well, that a significantly diverse group of players can all enjoy it. Someone who wants to pay for his own account (and my account through the plex market), gets to play PvP to his heart's content, without worrying about grinding isk, because he just pays more to CCP. I get to play without paying real money to CCP, by playing in the industry and market CCP created, in a way that serves that other player. How can this principle be implemented in Legion? Recognize that your monetization targets are the people who want convenience, not the people who want and pursue the most wealth, combat effectiveness, or organizational dominance. Avoiding pay to win is only one side of that coin. The other side is, giving Legion players skills that can serve other players, through the in game market. If you build a Legion salvage system without any of the mildly inconvenient* steps we see in the Eve Online industrial economy, if its too simple, you will not be taking advantage of the diversity of players Legion could attract, and the ways that interaction can spur income for CCP. --- If you give salvage and all equipment (not just armor plates) weight or volume that slows players down, there's a reason to prefer an LAV with more torque instead of a more offensive/defensive ability. Bingo, you've just introduced the "hauling" trade to Legion. --- You do need simplicity in the progression system, but ONLY for new players* in high security space. You also need complexity, depth, hardship, and massive inequality if you want Legion to have longevity and appeal to a large and diverse set of players. Also, people will warn you to be cautious building connections to Eve Online's economy. Don't be too cautious; be bold, but share the economic links you're contemplating with the community on a test server or in the forums, and you'll get excellent projections of their impact. If you share your bad ideas with us, we will let you know before you implement them and drive away customers.
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 112	Posted - 2014.05.14 16:40:00 - [2] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: If anyone can explain a way for a subscription, time based progress system to work in a FTP FPS which uses active SP accrual, while providing a monetisation system that enables CCP to make a profit, encouraging new player take up and not needing huge resources to create an extensive NPE to explain all that, then this is your moment to shine... As to the monetization portion of your question, make Legion players so influential on Eve Online planetary interaction and sovereignty that Eve Online players will spend isk (supporting plex purchases) to help their Legion allies. Legion should not repeat the mistake of Dust514 having a weak connection to Eve Online. This is Legion's primary selling point and advantage over other FPS titles. NPE? Legion players fight drones for salvage, AND to reduce the "drone infestation" statistic that lowers the resource gathering rates for planetary installations. If you tie the NPE into the economy in high sec in a way that protects new players from the proto-stopmping-inclined "elite," players who are also industrialists will provide the tutorials for new players. This is Legion's single greatest asset and distinction from every other FPS title: a connection to emergent game play creators of Eve Online. Give them map editors and appropriate economic connections to Legion, and they'll build the NPE for CCP.
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 112	Posted - 2014.05.14 17:03:00 - [3] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: I'm still not completely understanding the progression system you outlined regarding the weapons. What I want to know is, can I still be able to fit a Nova Knife onto a Commando suit or an Plasma Rifle onto a Scout or a Sniper Rifle onto a Logistics regardless of their role and and race? I believe they've already answered this. Except for your question's reference to the commando suit (whose role hasn't been designed in the new system yet) the answer is yes, you can. It will require that you progress down two separate paths for two different roles, but once you have done so, you'll be able to combine those roles, mixing and matching elements from each. Or am I mistaken?
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 112	Posted - 2014.05.14 18:45:00 - [4] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: ...Matchmaking should be good, but not at the expense of the powerful versus not powerful struggle. You're trying to flip the "mass appeal" switch and sacrifice good gameplay for popularity (and in the office this translates to dollar signs). It won't work, your game isn't as polished as Titanfall or COD and knowing your development process it's never going to be. You pump out updates too fast, and your team is too small. I'm sorry, those are the facts. The casuals will see your game, and think "Oh, well this game is alright... Titanfall is better though" and they won't come back. They have no vested interest in Dust, EVE, and they won't have an interest in Legion either. The production value is what they care about, and it simply isn't there. Its core appeal is to a Machiavellian playerbase who ignores these facts because it allows them to live out a power fantasy regarding taking away other peoples toys and griefing those who are not in a strong position to defend themselves. If you try to build your game the other way and ignore these basic New Eden principles -- instead making fights "fair" -- you will pretty much just create another, lesser version of every other game in existence. I agree with the bold portion entirely. However, you're downplaying the diversity of Eve Online's appeal. Machiavellian game play is an option, its not the core. Its one of several approaches to the game. Some like building sandcastles, some like knocking them down, some like ruling. Eve Online appeals to all three, no one type of player is the "core." Legion can do the same. It needs to have the same broad appeal if CCP Z hopes to take advantage of the different opportunities for monetization those different styles of play offer.
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 119	Posted - 2014.05.16 16:39:00 - [5] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Vrain Matari wrote: ...[stuff about respecs]... It's less to do with immersion and more to do with discouraging FOTM chasers. The correct remedy for discouraging FOTM chasers, is not to create FOTM in the first place. To the extent CCP re-balances items, changing what we had previously chosen, our choices are rendered meaningless. Respecs are an absolutely necessary evil, if CCP is going to do any re-balancing of items. They are necessary to avoid the greater evil of treating their customers like the victims of a bait and switch scam. Arguing that customers should be stuck with a choice they didn't make (a differently balanced version of their prior choice) is an argument against people enduring the consequences of their own choices, and in favor of making people endure the consequences of someone else's choice. The entire "no respecs bc choices should have consequences" argument is thoroughly sloppy.
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 119	Posted - 2014.05.16 17:11:00 - [6] - Quote Captain Crutches wrote: I invite you to head over to the Eve forums and ask for a refund if your Drones SP in light of the major drone changes coming in Kronos. I'm sure the community there will be very enthusiastic in their response. Did you imagine that as a counterpoint to something I'd written? You just gave an example of re-balancing diminishing the importance of my choices, and subjecting me to the consequences of someone else's choice. Thanks for supporting what I'd written, by providing an apt example of what's wrong with the "no respecs bc choices should have consequences" argument. That argument is just as sloppy here, as it is in Eve Online. There are all sorts of arguments for and against respecs. "Bc choices should have consequences" isn't a good one.
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 123	Posted - 2014.05.25 15:41:00 - [7] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2169542#post2169542 PDF (Below Link): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Pqc0ScXKN7OE1mczZ3RHduX180TU1MMEEzeW9LaU4yWDM0/edit?usp=sharing Pokey Dravon wrote: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Pqc0ScXKN7OE1mczZ3RHduX180TU1MMEEzeW9LaU4yWDM0/edit?usp=sharing Please view PDF above at full zoom so all text is visible. Recent discussion has heavily been focused on the proposed ideas for the Skill System in EVE: Legion. Development feels that the current system is too complicated for the target audience, and has suggested a simplified system to make things easier for new players to understand. I however feel that simplifying the system excessively betrays the freedom of gameplay that is New Eden, and that the primary issue lies in the presentation of the system and not the system itself. The above PDF presents and interface designed to make Skilling easy for new players, while maintaining the depth of the skill system for veteran players. ... I'd love to hear some dev feedback on this. If the goal is simplifying the NPE, is there any concern that Pokey's suggestion doesn't serve that goal adequately? Does CCP Z perceive any downside to Pokey's suggestion? I can't think of any downside. Its fantastic.