|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Got That Dodi
RestlessSpirits
9
   |
Posted - 2015.06.23 06:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
I may get into ideas for Dusts future tomorrow, it's late now and the post would be long.
For now I will ask if it's possible to make the Racial Tank Petition into a Racial Vehicle Petition. I love me some dropships, as I know many others do. And I'm sure folks would love all the Racial LAVs as well. If we are gonna dream we might as well dream big. |
Got That Dodi
RestlessSpirits
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 15:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
Gearing up to throw some ideas out, get ready, it's gonna be a lot. I will try and avoid getting side tracked and scatter brained. |
Got That Dodi
RestlessSpirits
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 17:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alright, I will start with a few disclaimers-
#1- I won't bring it up again, because it is not in the spirit of VAHZZs post, but all my coming ideas assume Dusts movement to a new system. If an attempt was ever made to implement any of this on the PS3, fine.
#2- These are all just "off the top of my head" ideas, spit balling if you will. I will be dealing more with general concepts and overall ideas, not necessarily finite game mechanics. I'm expecting trolls, but let's not take any of this too seriously guys.
General Match Concepts
As we all know, a large issue in play here on Dust is opposing team balance in the sense of numbers and Experience/SP/Equipment. When considering new player retention, these I feel are some of the larger issues that need to be dealt with. Dust is not a new player friendly game, and some serious attempts need to be made to change that if a CCP shooter is going to grow it's player base.
My solution is a dynamic bot system. Let's say a squad (6) of new (2mil SP ish) players jumps into a skirmish right at the start. Let's say, like the old days, there are no enemy players on the other team (just for ease of explaination, we will say matchmaking could not find a suitable match up). The game would then be populated by bots, on both sides, according to the strength of each team. A hard limit on actual players would remain (16v16), but the number of bots per team could exceed this limit. As people drop in/drop out of matches, the number/skill of bots could be altered on the fly, ideally maintaining some semblance of balance in a 14v7 match, or a rookie vs vet match. Obviously we are still shooting for a balanced 16v16 match, as much as possible at least.
So let's say this team of 6 rookies starts the skirmish. The number/skill of bots would fluctuate as needed, giving these guys a solid challenge according to their ability (dictating factors could be skill, equipment, whatever, haven't thought that all the way out). Now let's say a squad of 3 vets jumps into the skirmish 2 minutes in. The game would then adjust the skill/number of the bots on each team, in order to maintain some forms of balance. This could be repeated as many times as needed as people drop in/drop out, maybe even slight adjustments when nobody leaves as the balance of power in the match swings back and forth. I guess a crude analogy would be rubber banding in a race game, but nowhere near as impactful.
I'm not saying these bots should determine the outcome of a match. The 3 vets should still always defeat the 6 rookies. I would say the closer the player teams are in terms of balance, the less impact bots would have. In a match up deemed perfect by the system, the bots would have no impact, maybe all bots are removed, maybe the bots that remain would be worthless, either way.
Now of course any killing/resupplying of bots would come with a FAR smaller reward than doing the same to/for a player. Bot kills would reward far less WP, supporting bots with rep tools, nano hives, up links would also reward far less SP. This would impact end of match ISK reward as well. Basically, if you have a match where nearly all your successful interactions came against bots, and not players, your end of match rewards would be far far less.
To start off, we will say this would be a pub only idea.
This would obviously help new players the most. It would give them an entity in game that they could be effective against, giving them somewhat of an illusion that they are contributing to a match, even in a loss. This may keep people around long enough to learn the game, get better equipment/passives, and reach a point where they can start feeling their progress, hopefully keeping them active, as well as giving them the idea of becoming a vet as something to aspire towards.
From the vet side, a bot should remain fairly harmless. I would hate to see matches determined by bots, and this should be avoided at all costs. A distraction, at the most, is what a bot should be to a vet. As in a lone vet tangling with 5 bots lets his guard down and gets jumped and killed by a rookie, or maybe that lone objective way out over yonder gets hacked by a bot, forcing a reaction from the vets of an opposing team.
I think this would also bring life to battles. Even if the match was filled to capacity by players, bots could still be placed in match just to make it feel more populated and alive. This would also allow for say a 16 rookie vs 16 vet battle to be somewhat balanced. Again, the vets should still dominate, but ideally the match would be made interesting to an extent, and rookies would actually be able to do stuff in said battle, though at a much reduced end of match reward.
In summary, some sort of bot system would (in theory) give rookies something to practice on, making them feel not completely worthless, provide a solution to empty battles, make each battle feel more alive and interesting, and give the game the ability to somewhat adjust balance in match, in a non deciding way(think of referees in sports not wanting to call a penalty that will win/lose someone the game).
There is much more to come, not sure when, but I will be touching on the genral idea of everything in game. I will definitely be tweaking this post, and obviously these are only ideas. I'll definitely be able to clarify things if needed, and obviously this is all open to discussion. |
Got That Dodi
RestlessSpirits
11
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 18:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
The EVE Connection
or, more accurately
The EVE Connection will never be
At least in my opinion, for reasons I've stated before but won't get into, as this is an idea post.
Disclaimer- I have far less thought put into this, and I will honestly be making it up as I go, but this is all meant to be very vague ideas, and more than open for discussion.
The thought of actions in the space above our planet side battles is far to awesome to let die. Though I admire CCP for dreaming so big, I think we can all agree it didn't work.
My solution is to remove Dust from the EVE universe, and start from scratch. I feel it would be much easier to build the universe from the ground up into space, as opposed from space to the ground.
For the restart, everything going on above the planets could be an automated simulation type thing. We could still call in orbital/warbarge strikes, but other than that things will be happening on their own up there.
This, I would say, is the most important factor to keeping Dust alive and growing. As a vet, you ask yourself why am I here? What is there left to do? Why should I keep playing?
Answers such as "experimenting with new fits", and "staying connected with friends" are nice, but unacceptable. In a game where people have amassed 50, 60, 70mil+ SP needs more meat.
My grand scheme would involve 1, maybe 2 new games later down the line. A somewhat arcadey space fighter combat type game, as well as a capital ship type simulation game. Think of it as 3 teirs, Dust-Xwing v TieFighter-EVE. I will touch on this later. (I imagine CCP wanted to do this with Dust-Valkyrie-EVE).
Anyway, why are we fighting, what are we fighting for, what's gained/lost with every battle, outside equipment/ISK?
Well this part, when viewed as a big picture deal, is already fairly set, and doesn't really need to change. We are fighting over planets, and all the possible benifits that come with controlling them.
Us being mercenaries is a large benifit to the games mechanics because issues such as MAG saw, with one side (SVER) seemingly becoming the place to be thus throwing a lot of balance out the window, can be counter acted and avoided. Fighting for the faction that currently held the most power would give less rewards, giving people incentive to fight for the faction that holds less power. This would fluctuate obviously, so as a faction went from less powerful to more powerful, the rewards received would go from greater to smaller. This would create a "center of gravity" so to speak, where ideally no faction ever got too powerful and the balance of power would rise and fall as players sought out the higher paying factions.
Mechanics could be introduced to reward players for keeping a faction on top when they are close to falling under their fair share of power in the universe.
So for example-
Starting off the Amarr, Caldari, Gallente, and Minmatar would all have 25% power each, totaling 100% obviously (side note, when I refer to "power", it is in a vague sense, I guess we can think of it as territory held, just to make things easy). For the most part, all battles will have a pretty good payout when power is spread evenly. But let's say Minmatar drops to 15% power over some time, a week or two (for whatever reasons) and Amarr climbs to 35% power. In any ensuing battles, those fighting for Minmatar would receive greater rewards than those fighting for Amarr. This would shift the balance of power as more people fought for Minmatar, and as the power gap closed, so too would the reward gap. This would, in theory, go a long way to keeping the power evenly balanced across all factions.
To add some spice to this system, as well as making it less rigid, saving a faction from losing its majority power could see greater rewards as well. I offer up this example-
Minmatar have dropped to 15% power, and Amarr have risen to 35%. More people would start to fight for Minmatar to receive the greater rewards, and ideally the power would begin to balance itself out. Now let's say Minmatar have reached 22% power, and Amarr is sitting at 28% power. If Amarrian power has been consistently trending downwards, there could be a sort of trigger in which the payout for keeping Amarr just above Minmatar power would become greater. Think of it as decisive battles. Players who help maintain Amarrs power lead over Minmatar in these decisive battles would be greatly rewarded, just as players who help Minmatar even out or take the lead power wise would be greatly rewarded. This, I feel would further solidify the "center of gravity", and keep people from fighting for the weaker side all the time to secure the larger payout.
I'm on a phone, typing this much is a pain in the butt, so I'm gonna draw this post to a close, make it part 1 of 2 posts. But before I do-
This is all vague theory crafting. What do I mean by "power"? I don't know lol. Obviously there would have to be some benifit to being committed to a side holding more power than others. There would need to be more than simple end of match payouts dictated by faction power to motivate people to fight for factions, so I will into duce some limiting factors that I am not sure how to implement, introduce, or make work (this is where y'all need to jump in and help). |
Got That Dodi
RestlessSpirits
11
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 18:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Reserved |
Got That Dodi
RestlessSpirits
13
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 23:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
Adelia Lafayette wrote:I'd also like eve pilots able to see the map we see when they are linked up for an orbital strike. It would be nice to have eyes in the sky calling out when enemy tanks start rolling around
A tanker in your squad with a squad mate in the turret can do just this. If the tanker and turret operator have excellent map knowledge and work well together, they become nearly unstoppable. I used to love doing this, I miss you Vulfina :( |
|
|
| |
|