It'd be nice if that progression pattern were simplified and standardized across all module types. Kinda like weapons, where STD 5% weaker than ADV with are 5% weaker than PRO. Emphasis on the method (not the 5%).

Agreed, (although that only holds true for the Majority of weapons, AV weapons are 10% per tier and Sniper Rifles are a few damage per tier...then a few hundred jumping up to officer)

Even given what has been already suggested (admittedly, I skimmed), I still question the game design reasons to keep Militia/Standard gear around.

Why does this gear exist?
Person A: "To let new players have cheap gear to experiment with!"
Person B: "To have a cheap option available for Jews to thrifty individuals!"
Person C: "To have more sense of progression from 'new player' to 'veteran'-status!"
Person D: "To blah blah [insert other argument here] blah!"

But how legitimate are those?
1. Why do new players HAVE TO experiment with the worst gear in the game? Even if you improve it, it is still bad, and new players will still reach the point where they are going up against better equipped players, which is always going to be harder on them.

2. And cheap gear? Why does the cheapest gear have to be THREE to FOUR whole teirs of power below the best?

And progression? Why does progression work hand in hand with increase in power?

3. I have more question than answers, and the above are more rhetorical than anything, but really, the biggest question I have is "how fun is running the worst gear in the game?" I know it ain't too fun. And that is what it comes down to, doesn't it? Does the low end gear have a good impact upon fun? I say no.

How fun are these low end fits, and why are new players (and bad ones like me) relegated to them

I remember back in Chromosome, where we had most chunks of gameplay occur in three tiers: Militia, Standard, and Advanced. Prototype was seldom seen. Militia and standard are mostly identical, so really most of my time in Chrome was fighting within only TWO teirs, and occasionally you'd have a sort of "Boss" battle, some baddie with glowing red eyes... Spooky.

4. I could ramble on and on, but I don't see how Militia and Standard is good for DUST. Personally, I'd like for ADV become the "new" STD, Proto the new ADV, and officer the new Prototype.

As for The "old" STD and MLT? They become the new bigfoot. I'd explain the simple BPO transition process, but nobody's gunna read this so blah blah, Minotaurs are sexy, blah.

1. Because players have to start somewhere? "Progressing" from better to worse doesn't make much sense. And consider the inverse: let new players experiment with the best gear in the game ... that'd be interesting, but it isn't particularly intuitive.

2. It really shouldn't be. Jumps between tiers should be noticeable but slight. There really shouldn't be instances of PRO being 200% or 300% better than STD.

3. Getting crushed b/c your loadout is many times worse than what others are running is no fun, but advancement is fun. Improvement, progress, return on investment, etc ... these are good feelings. And feeling a little progress alot of times is arguably more fun than feeling alot of progress just one time.

4. If the power gap between tiers was less pronounced, might your position may change? A two-tier system replaces steady, progressive advancement with a much less fulfilling "start here ... upgrade once ... k done".

---

PS: Just in case you haven't read my earlier posts, I'm not at all arguing in defense of vet perks or maintaining the status quo.

1) Just for reference, in my idea of making Advanced the " lowest level " gear available to new players: If that were to happen, technically, the "new" gear would be the worst in the game, BUT I use the term "worst" in a different manner with emphasis on less tangible connotations.

Lowest level =/= worst (to me).
And I in no way was asking for an inversed progression from good ---> bad.
As I see it, right now progression is: Worst ----> Best
In my mind, it should be: Average ----> Best
But, this is really just splitting hairs... and semantics, and you know who likes semantics? A pedant. Nobody likes a pedant!

3) Progression is indeed fun, but too bad the main form of progression really is "Oooh! Now my gun is 5% better than it was last week!" The progression is mainly vertical. Lessening that verticality is good, no doubt, but it still is "Finally, now that I'm x% better with Myofibrils, melee fits are finally fun!"

In most other games I play (Borderlands, Fallout, TES, other RPG/ish games) progression involves NEW things, not primarily becoming marginally better at the SAME thing. But, that is diverging a bit from the topic.

And another thing about how Progression is in DUST: How much time is spent progressing from MLT->STD or from STD->ADV? How fun is it? For me, at least, most of the progression happens from ADV onward, due to how quick the first levels go.

4) I do indeed want the power gap lessened between tiers... But my qualm with it is: Why do we need FIVE tiers? Yes, you can lessen the power gap by making Militia and Standard suck less... But you could achieve the same results by simply removing a them.

What does FIVE tiers do that THREE can't? Ultimately, what is the game design reason behind having FIVE? I see none, hence me preferring to remove tiers.

And further: what hardware/performance effects are there with FIVE vs THREE? I don't know, but reducing the amount of tiers seems like it could free up some resources or something... But damn it Jim! I'm a Minotaur, not a programmer!

And with regards to balancing gear vs dev time: which would be easier/faster, balancing FIVE tiers, or THREE?

PS: typing with a tablet sucks and my hand is going numb from typing all this.

True... I guess we could have, say 100 tiers... But at what cost? From what little I understood of the dev reaction to power cores and all that awesomeness... Assets, all of them have to be loaded into battle, taking resources.

Rhetorical question: How much do modules take in Memory/RAM/Litres? Every single standard and Militia module, being loaded. Suits eat a lot, though, that much is certain...

Sure, compared to textures and 3d models, not much... But even if we could theoretically have infinite tiers balanced via maths and two points, everything in the game needs to be assessed with a resource:benefit ratio. Not all those infinite points have a favorable ratio. So, do the ones we now have posses a favorable one? Only a Developer can really answers, but my gut says "no." (Or maybe it's something I ate, who knows)

Check out the link in my sig for the numbers on this topic.

It will be tough to pin down an effective ratio to work with, when you're dealing with the low TTK of a shooter...

The difference between tiers needs to be large enough to notice, but not so large as to invalidate the other choices. At the same time, a proto module can't be so large that it breaks the feel of the game...

It might be interesting to look at the range, median, and mean of weapon dps figures to determine how many additional seconds of life a plate provides, and work from there...determine the max time a plate should increase TTK by, determine a minimally acceptable TTK increase, subtract once for ADV twice for STD...

For sake of argument, let's say a maximum TTK increase from a plate was 2s, and a minimally acceptable increase was .25s, under this the STD plate would increase TTK by 1.5s, ADV by 1.75, and PRO by 2. There are other methods to go about balancing things than percentages, percentages just lend themselves well to being easy to compare across disparate categories. Non-percentage is fine, provided the methodology Akers sense, and is used consistently for all modules of a given type (in the example given, HP modules should be balanced similarly).

As for the SP gap...questions there are a bit harder to answer...Module efficacy increases are difficult to examine, or balance properly when combined with tiered modules...Module efficiency on the other hand is easier to work with (where the skill modifies fitting cost) in a tiered module system.

This thread is something I believe should be considered when designing the 2.0 if tiered progression is kept.

Look at a 5, 4, 3, 2, 1% benefit for each efficiency so that the newbro would see an immediate jump in the first few levels, and then really have to grind to max out the skill just as everyone does.

Just so we're clear, for say the Shield Extender skill it would give:

+5% module efficacy at LVL 1
+4% module efficacy at LVL 2
+3% module efficacy at LVL 3
+2% module efficacy at LVL 4
+1% module efficacy at LVL 5

If so, I really think this is a great idea.