|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2043
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 22:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Based on what weGÇÖve heard of CCP ZGÇÖs proposed progression system for Project Legion, I (and many others) think it is the wrong direction. IGÇÖve written at length about it here. I know CCP Z is in a difficult position. Based on his remarks, itGÇÖs not difficult to infer that DUST is very far away from meeting its financial targets. I agree that we need significant changes to expand the player base exponentially. It is essential that Project Legion is financially successful if it is to ever mature into the game we all want it to be.
CCP Z pointed out several problems with the existing progression system in his Progression session at Fanfest. I have put a fair bit of effort to draft an alternative Progression system that tries to more closely follow EVE. It meets the accessibility goals without alienating the player base that enjoys DUST BECAUSE its progression system is similar to EVE which has proven successful for over a decade and manages to keep many players engaged in DUST despite the gameGÇÖs long list of flaws (ThatGÇÖs a pretty major indicator of success right there).
Let me preface this with the caveat that IGÇÖm not a graphics designer and the mockups are pretty ugly. I do OS X and iOS development in my spare time though and IGÇÖve studied a fair bit of User Interaction (UX) design. Some of the proposed details are pretty rough. The goal isnGÇÖt to nit-pick details, but focus on the broad outline and usability concepts for how we can make a deep/rich/complex progression system (that many of us love) a lot more accessible to a new player. Below are the linked images (The skill tree diagram is huge, just zoom and scroll):
Skill Tree Interface Mockup GÇ£ISISGÇ¥ Analog Mockup Skill Tree Diagram
IGÇÖd love to hear your feedback.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2043
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 22:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Here are some highlights to point out:
I omitted a lot of the details of many skills as they would remain largely the same, the copy/pasting/renaming process was getting tedious and time consuming and we all know what these skills do already.
Players begin with generic (perhaps GÇ£Concord brandGÇ¥ suits/vehicles). I stole this idea from CCP Z. ItGÇÖs a good idea to keep things simple in the beginning. These suits and vehicles are bonused for armor/shield amount. It makes them good general purpose suits that provide reasonable survivability which should help with stomping a bit, and gives the new player freedom to experiment with a variety of weapons to find one that suits their play style.
All Skills have a bonus associated with them (with the exception of the Dropsuit/Vehicle Advanced Specialization skills. Those bonuses are on the suits themselves.
Although not being a fan of tiericide myself, it seems CCP and a significant portion of the community is. As a compromise, all tiers are unlocked at level 1 of the skill. I have included STD, ADV, PRO of some modules (I omitted many to save space/time) to show how they provide diminishing returns at higher levels, as their costs rise exponentially. You get the most bang/ISK at lowest tier, but you can pay significantly more to push the envelope and gain an advantage. These can be renamed to common, uncommon, and rare, or whatever if you feel the need to GÇ£WoW-ifyGÇ¥ it, itGÇÖs not something I care about either way.
In addition to the ISIS interface, the cost of skill books should be used to GÇ£coralGÇ¥ new players into successful strategies without explicitly prohibiting freedom. Skills that will be very helpful early on should be very cheap, and those that are better trained later should be very expensive. Vehicles should be prohibitively expensive to train at first (beyond basic levels) just to encourage the new player to get a general foothold with an infantry role first so they can make ISK and support themselves before going down the ISK-pit of vehiclesGÇöand I believe strongly that vehicles should be very powerful, vulnerable to Ewar/teamwork, and very expensive to replace.
Much of this obviously wonGÇÖt be implemented at launch, but I think this would make an excellent roadmap for where the game should go over the next couple of years after launch. I think at least basic E-War (webs and neuts) and some player-controlled drones should be available at launch. Things like Rigs, warfare links, and vehicle T2 specializations could come later. But they really do need to be made and not be soon(tm)ed into vaporware.
The weapon tree was completely reorganized to function more like EVEGÇÖs. This helps new players understand the type of damage any particular weapon is doing. The Weapons and Turrets trees were combined into one WeaponGÇÖs tree. This has the advantage of delaying vehicle investment slightly, and also encourages synergy between weapon types. Also someone who uses vehicles will have at least a few points into infantry weapons to help fund their habit.
Some weapons are renamed to make their role more obvious (e.g. GÇ£rocket pistolGÇ¥ instead of GÇ£flaylockGÇ¥). This isnGÇÖt critical, but I think it makes the trees much more obvious to new players.
I changed the language from GÇ£effectiveGÇ¥ range to GÇ£falloffGÇ¥ range. These mechanics should follow EVEGÇÖs and use the same terminology. Anywhere else where you have redundant concepts between the games with separate terminology should simply use the EVE terminology. This will help players who like Project Legion to have an easier time transitioning to EVE (gateway drug).
Existing missile turrets become rocket turrets (dumb fire, higher damage/ROF, shorter range). Missile turrets are added that use locking mechanics. They have considerable lock times (reduced with skills and having a friendly use a target painter) that can be disrupted with Ewar (ECM, Damps). Lock times are dependent on sig profile of target (i.e. fast, stealthy vehicles take much longer to lock).
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2052
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 05:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
There were are some more points I forget to mention.
I tried very hard to limit damage bonuses as much as possible. There are a few skills that have damage bonuses, but for the most part they don't exist. This should help keep TTK balance issues easier to manage.
I forgot to add a Weapon upgrade skill and damage mods. I'll update later.
I added resistances by damage type to armor and shields. This has several benefits. For one, it allows for remote repair + a high resist suit to be a more effective combo (but with new EWar tools, you can counter this more easily as well. It is a great tool to combat FOTM. If hybrid weapons become the FOTM, then stack hybrid resists (at the expense of being more vulnerable to everything else). This has the effect of encouraging diversified weapon types across the player base.
I added remote shield repair. I think it's important that you have shield repping logis as well as armor repping logis to fit better with EVE. Shields should get a buff, but shield extenders should have a penalty of increasing your sig profile, so you may be better off using resists or shield regulators instead of stacking extenders.
@Hammerhead LandSharkX mentioned SP costs (in addition to the ISK costs I mentioned) to help coral new players. I completely agree with this as well.
I have tried to remove a lot of the "filler skills" early in the trees that really only served to delay new players getting to the important things like suits, guns, shields, armor, electronics, engineering, etc. There are some SP skinks thrown in there, but they all have a bonus and they tend to be deeper in the tree.
It might make sense to block access to certain skill trees early on (drones, leadership both come to mind) as they should be geared towards more experienced play styles. I'm a bit torn on the specifics though. I'm hesitant to obstruct freedom, but there is a lot to be said for focusing a new player's range of choices to a smaller set at first and expose them to more stuff as they get comfortable. One option that I'm not overly fond of (but it could work) is locking certain trees down until some total SP milestone is reached (e.g. 10,000,000 total SP to unlock the leadership tree). You wouldn't spend that much to unlock it, it would simply unlock once your character has that many total SPs accumulated.
An alternative option to the above problem would be to make those skills blocked by expensive skills deep in other trees. I think this is an even worse solution though because it introduces non-linearity in the skill trees. I tried very hard to avoid this aspect of EVE's skill system, because it adds a ton of unnecessary complexity. It does exist for the T2 specialist suits/vehicles though, although it makes sense in these cases, and it should be obvious that these are end-game toys that new players don't have to worry about for a long while (which should limit the confusion).
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2054
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 06:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:You should ask I-Shayz-I if you can have your thread linked in the sticky thread above. Great place to post your idea there. Good idea, Just did. Thanks.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2059
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 14:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
I-Shayz-I wrote:Marking this for inclusion in the index.
I like pretty pictures, and the DEVs do too. Thanks!
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2063
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Your ideas for roles are quite odd or just downright aweful (EWAR medium suit? LOL), but the overall idea is good.
EDIT: This is pretty much the sight of how the ISIS and skill system would look (with T I suits added though). I can't draw and is horrible with putting pics together, so you doing this is a good thing. Yeah I needed to fill all roles to complete the UI. Some were thrown together at the last second. I'm sure smarter people than myself could come up with better roles to fill those boxes.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2063
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
@Kevall Longstride Sorry it took so long to reply. Thanks for taking the considerable amount of time to write your response, it deserved an equally detailed response and I havenGÇÖt had time to do so until now.
Kevall Longstride wrote:First of all Vell0cet, you've done a great job with your mock ups. They're clear, concise and easy to understand. o7 But before I offer you an opinion on them, I feel it only fair to come clean about something. As those of you who are actively post on Z's official progression thread will know, I'm very much in favour of his plans. This isn't because of me wishing to make some sort of drama or being provocative I can assure you but a genuine belief that the player numbers will grow substantially using it. In my latest blog which was a round up of Fanfest I speak of NDA's and how important they are. In that section I hint and wink about something which after the Dust Keynote became an open secret to those that attended. I'd signed an NDA prior to my going to Fanfest. The circumstance and reason for me doing so are not something I'm prepared or at liberty to discuss and I'd ask that you respect that. But obviously any prior knowledge that I might have, is going to colour my views somewhat. So I feel its important for the sake of full disclosure that you know that before I proceed. This translates into GÇ£I have seen/heard something that leads me to believe the current system isnGÇÖt working, but I canGÇÖt discuss it.GÇ¥ I respect that youGÇÖre under NDA, but quite frankly, without knowing the details, itGÇÖs impossible for me to interpret that data to see if you and CCP are coming to the right conclusion.
What I have seen is a progression system that has been able to keep tens of thousands of players religiously logging in each week to push forward in a game that can generously be called a GÇ£betaGÇ¥ thatGÇÖs seen very little content over the past 12 months, is unbalanced, buggy and on an obsolete platform. ItGÇÖs a game that has gotten me to spend more money than any other game IGÇÖve ever played (maybe IGÇÖve spent more in EVE subs over several yearsGÇöbut itGÇÖs close). WeGÇÖre talking hundreds of dollars on a free-to-play game thatGÇÖs in pretty anemic shape. Maybe that makes me too stupid to have a valid opinion, lol. The progression system IMO is the heart of what makes this game good and drives it forward, keeping people coming back.
IGÇÖm just going to assume that the data youGÇÖre talking about is low player retention. This could be wrong, and I know you canGÇÖt legally comment on this assumption, but let me just discuss this for a bit. There are plenty of problems that affect the NPE right now, I find it difficult to believe that the progression system is the heart of the problem. If they did user testing, itGÇÖs possible their sample group was bad (maybe theyGÇÖre targeting shooter fans instead of RPG fans for example). Also this is a PC game, not a console, so there is generally a higher level of competence in those players. Are they committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? There are so many reasons why players would quit this game: a lack of any semblance of a tutorial, lack of a testing range, itGÇÖs buggy, imbalanced, thereGÇÖs not an extended academy option to shelter new players until they have the SP to build a competitive advanced fit, the matchmaking algorithm is terrible, I could go on.
ItGÇÖs also possible that with a good tutorial and UI changes (like the ones IGÇÖve mocked up) those same players in the user testing may have had an easier time GÇ£getting it.GÇ¥ Another point to consider is what does GÇ£retentionGÇ¥ really mean? If a game retains someone like myself who will stick around for years, post helpful feedback and invest hundreds of dollars over about 15 months, or someone like yourself who is a multiplier of player retention, how does that equate? If CCP ZGÇÖs system increases NPE by 400% for the first four months, but nukes the long-term retention to a shadow of what it is, that may not actually be a smart long-term financial decision. That is my big fear.
The other point is just because something is really bad doesnGÇÖt NECESSARILY mean you need to redesign everything or even make really massive changes. In a sandbox game, sometimes little changes can have a huge impact. IGÇÖm reminded of the bug-turned-feature of jet can mining in the early days of EVE. Having an unlimited storage capacity on containers (literally one variable) created a huge dynamic system of piracy, can flipping, and mining defense fleets. I think adding an ISK-efficiency stat to the leaderboards in the first position would radically alter the incentives to proto stomp for example.
I am a huge believer in the power of UX design. Look at the iPhone and how it allows so much complex design to be manipulated via very simple, discoverable, and easy-to-use controls. Principles like progressive disclosure can be used to delay the exposure of complexity until the user is ready for it. These make complexity manageable without GÇ£dumbing things down.GÇ¥
Quote:The first real problem with changing such an entrenched system is the familiarly that those that use it, have with it. It is so easy to forget that while we are used to its quirks and shortfalls and know how to bypass them, a complete novice, with no prior understanding of such a deep and complex skill are completely befuddled by it. As CEO of D-UNI, I am in an almost unique position to comment on this. I truly appreciate your feedback. I agree that you are an excellent position to comment and provide insight. I deeply value/respect your opinions.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2063
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Quote:Now while the number of players I kick very rarely goes above 20% of the corp total, 90% of them on average are new toons less than 6 weeks old. Meaning D-UNI has a retention rate of roughly 10% for new players with a character less or just over 30 days. Now a strongly performing Free to Play game has a retention rate of 5%. So reading that you'd say were doing well. Your math doesnGÇÖt add up. IGÇÖm not saying you havenGÇÖt calculated your retention rate accurately, but what youGÇÖve described doesnGÇÖt add up to a 10% retention rate. Let me use fake numbers to illustrate: D-UNI gets 1000 new players one month. 200 are inactive and purged. Of those 200, 90% are new players less than 6-weeks old (i.e. 180 players are new and inactive). You donGÇÖt have a 10% retention rate you have retained 820 players of the original 1000. See my point?
Quote:The problem is so bad that a tidy up of the tree and the introduction of some new UI just isn't going to be enough now. The proposals I've seen so far from players including your own Vell0cet are merely re-jigs of what we have now. And what we have now has seen the games retention rates drop for a year. I think youGÇÖre seriously underestimating the power of UX/UI design here for one. Also there are some significant design changes in my proposal as far as giving access to core skills earlier, making it easier to form mental models of damage types/resistances. Making naming more consistent. Creating a set of starting suits that are racially neutral to radically simplify the progression choices early on. Remember, you just have to get them over the initial GÇ£humpGÇ¥ to become invested in the game (i.e. keep them playing for at least 2 months or so). If you can do this, then theyGÇÖre much more likely to be invested enough to start probing the depths of the system. DUST has done the hard part of design, which is designing a deep/rich/compelling endgame. It simply needs to spend a lot of energy developing the experience for the first day/week/month. Also the nature of the passive SP is like crack that keeps drawing you back if youGÇÖve stepped away from the game for a while.
Quote:The number one question I get right now from new players is what do I do and how do I go about it. So complex and daunting is the current tree to a new player it that they are scared to do anything in case they screw it up. They sense that a mistake now could bugger them up right away but they've no clue as to why.
This not the way to encourage your new players to stay with the game, in a climate of fear of a mistake. In the early stages of joining game such as ours, players should be free to experiment and try as much as possible BEFORE they have to consider specialization and bonuses for items. In those first few hours they must be given a sense of real achievement in order for them to feel comfortable in staying.
The first couple of hours should be spent unlocking as much as they can for use. They shouldn't be yet burdened with choices regarding bonuses till they know what things they like to do and want to do better. But to prevent them doing it with no structure or end game, giving a role to unlock with weapons pertinent to that role as unlocks to give a sense of progress is the key to do it. Unlocking a weapon to use should be an experiment not a life choice. Allowing that weapon to be used in any other role while busy unlocking lots of stuff should be seen as bonus, not a requirement.
So a given role that easily understood and equipped as for such as soon as is possible is more preferable than being burdened immediately with do I unlock light, medium or Heavy and hell do they mean anyway?
Racial bonuses for suits and weapons shouldn't even enter the equation till a player wants to specialise and understands that there is a benefit to the play style that they use by choosing a race. This is incredibly helpful feedback and has gotten me to think about how I could amend my proposal somewhat. For one thing I think a full test range would be immensely valuable. Let the new player deploy to a test map with infinite SP (so they can create any build they want). And everything costing 0 ISK. Let them bring in friends with friendly fire or just shoot NPCGÇÖs that they can optionally approach and customize as well (e.g. give that NPC max armor skills and fit him in an Amarr sentinel with plates to see how long it takes to take him out with your mass driver, then spend fictional SP to change your mass driver skills to see how that would improve things, decide itGÇÖs not worth it and leave, spending those real SP on something else.). Trying-before-buying is huge (and not just militia, but having access to everything in a test mode) and is essential to both new and old players. I think it would do a lot to limit fear of mistakes.
(continued)
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2063
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
Next is the idea of players being overwhelmed with choice. What if in addition to what I suggested there was yet-another interface for academy players. One like CCP Z is proposing. YouGÇÖre locked out of the Skill Tree View until graduating from the academy (maybe 3-4 mill SP total). All skills are flattened into 5 separate unlocks on the tree. This UI has the roles on rails, but behind the scenes, itGÇÖs unlocking things in the real skill tree. It has the fast pace of rapid unlocks and the easily understood roles as you suggest. After you graduate from the academy, this view goes away and the player has access to the full view with the skills theyGÇÖve bought already inputted into the tree(progressive disclosure)GÇöpossibly with a free respec. Perhaps to further control the experience, certain trees would be unlocked at certain lifetime SP milestones. So you donGÇÖt have access to the E-war tree until you have 5mill SP, the drone tree until 8mill SP, the leadership tree until 12 mill SP, and the advanced Specializations 15 mill SP? YouGÇÖre reducing their focus onto a more limited track so they have a more narrow set of choices, but giving them the freedom to prioritize what they want within whatGÇÖs available to them.
Vets win because they arenGÇÖt being forced into roles for the endgame and we ultimately retain most of the system we love, new players get the benefit of the hand holding until theyGÇÖve become established in the game and are ready for more expansive choices. I think this would be a very reasonable compromise. It satisfies both concerns.
Quote:Giving a player a lot of achievement early in the game with the promise of greater reward with increasing specialisation is how we grab them and keep them. Having roles gives them structure and understanding without the need of a separate tutorial or extra UI, it streamlines the process and facilitates self teaching. A better NPE will help with things like teaching them game lore and PvE, explaining the value of corps.
But it shouldn't be seen as a cure all panacea, compensating for progression system based on that for a Hardcore subscription game, when what is needed for a FTP is as broad an audience as possible. Relying on a streamlined progression system to avoid the responsibility of designing an awesome UI and a totally badass tutorial would be a massive mistake. Remember that EVE is a FTP game (with PLEX), and Project Legion (if green lit) would be on the PC which is a much more hardcore platform with a different audience. I think itGÇÖs critical that the game appeals to hardcore RPG fans as well as more casual players. I think some of the changes I described might go a long way towards making both camps happy. I guarantee you that if they only appeal to the casual player, Project Legion will be a massive waste of CCPGÇÖs resources.
If you have the time IGÇÖd be interested to hear your feedback on the hybrid approach to progression mentioned above.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2063
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ulysses Knapse wrote:I'm actually not a fan of that particular skill tree, for several reasons, but the core concept is decent. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2063
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Only problem with the tree is that is has cap stuff, and that you put all the T I suits under one skill. The racial specializations (not advanced specializations) are all T1. It's the advanced specializations (e.g. Gallente Assasin) that is T2. Or am I misunderstanding your point?
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2065
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ulysses Knapse wrote:Okay, then. You asked for it! #1. I'm a little disillusioned with the dropsuit skill tree. I was hoping it would be more like EVE, where the specialization skills were separate from the racial skills. Your proposed skill tree makes hopping between specializations and factions comparatively easy. For someone who has learned Gallente Assault, jumping to Caldari Logistics is just as easy as jumping to Gallente Logistics or Caldari Assault. Your specialization doesn't mean as much, nor does your faction. If the two skills were separate, it would make a lot more sense and have a lot more meaning. #4. I don't get the advanced specialization thing. I honestly don't see the point in it. If all you want is to have greater amounts of specialization, wouldn't it be better to have separate dropsuits for each micro-specialization without needing new skills? Thanks for the feedback. You make some good points.
1 and 4 are kind of similar so I'll try to address them together. I agree that the barrier to entry for racial specialization has been lowered significantly, but a racially specialized suit is the basic T1 suit. A "Caldari Assault" is a basic specialization. The advanced specialization like a Caldari Command suit is equivalent to a T2 Command ship in EVE. You unlock the specific racial skill (e.g. Caldari Cruisier) and then you unlock the T2 specialization (in this case Command suits).
So I think having the barrier to entry for the basic racial specializations reasonably low is a good thing (especially from a new player perspective) and isn't that radically different from EVE. You can fly any racial frigate very quickly--and it wouldn't make sense to have Caldari Commando require Caldari Assault and Caldari pilot as prerequisites the way a battleship requires the cruiser and frigate skill prereqs. Removing the basic racial suits makes sense because they were stupid, nobody used them and they only served as ISK sinks, confusion for new players (i.e. them taking those to lvl 5 unnecessarily) and they made it harder for new players to get into reasonably competitive suits.
Replacing the racial generic suits with a Concord, or racially neutral suit limits the noise for new players, and allows them to focus on more meaningful choices like light/medium/heavy and not have to understand the particulars of each race and the implications of those decisions, until they've played for a while and are more comfortable with the game.
You could "guard" access to each race's suits by having a generic skill like "Gallente Infantry" or something, but then you're getting into ISK sinks and multiple, nonlinear skill dependancies to unlock a suit which gets messy/confusing from a UI standpoint. I'm open to suggestions though. Maybe there's a better way to do it.
Quote:#2. The explosives branch is a mess. It seems to contain both missile weapons and artillery weapons (Mass Driver). It would have been better if the non-projectile and non-missile explosives, such as those that are thrown or placed, were separate from both projectile weapons and missile weapons, as they act very differently. This one was tricky. The Explosive tree was trying to mirror the missile tree in EVE (and I do think mirroring EVE in the damage types is important), but our existing weapons don't fall into that category particularly well (except for Swarms). I don't really think of a mass driver as an artillery weapon though. Artillery is more a long-ranged projectile, than an up-close explosive. I agree the MD isn't a perfect fit here, but I'm open to ideas how to move things around better.
Quote:#3. The dropsuit and vehicle modules are separate. An unnecessary and annoying skillpoint sink. I went back-and-forth on this one, personally, but I removed many SP sinks already. If we're to have a tree that lasts for over a decade, we're going to need more SP sinks. I think this is a reasonable area to compromise, but I can see both sides of the argument.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2072
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ulysses Knapse wrote:I'm against the idea of Tech I having specializations. Having each dropsuit be suited for a particular role over another is one thing, but full-fledged specializations are something I would rather see from Tech II alone.
And Tech III can be the crazy child that can't seem to fit in. Try to think of the basic suits like better noob ships and the racial suits as basic, like frigs, destroyers, cruisers, battle cruisers, and battleships; they're more general/flexible. Sure logistics is a kind of specialty, but it a broad specialty able to do a wide variety of logistics tasks. The t2 advanced suits I proposed would be real specialties, designed to do one task really well. Like the triage specialist might only have 2 equipment slots and get large bonuses to nanite injectors and remote reps for shields or armor depending on the race. They might only have a sidearm. They would be poor choices for dropping links or hives. Or the command specialist might be really great at staying alive and boosting his allies with warfare links, but with fairly modest DPS.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2088
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:45:00 -
[14] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Your skill trees are too open, from what I can tell anyway. You appear to only have 1 step between choosing your suit size and your factional specialisation, this is not good.
No offence, but add somd more intermediary steps, as if you are asking a series of questions?
What suit size do you want? What role do you want? What faction do you want?
Focus on a tree that expands regularly, not all at once.
This is an interesting suggestion, in other words, adding depth to the noob tree. One concern is what you would bonus a generic assault/logi/etc. for?
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire
2120
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 20:01:00 -
[15] - Quote
Just keeping this alive.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire
2122
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 04:57:00 -
[16] - Quote
Averllik wrote:Lol I think u may need to rename the thing from ISIS to something different lol Haha. Yeah, bad luck with the name. ISIS comes from EVE; it stands for Interstellar Ship Identification System (I think). Any suggestions for a replacement now that a group of murderous radical religious extremists have hijacked the ackronym?
Best PvE idea ever!
|
|
|
|