|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Vrain Matari
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
3174
   |
Posted - 2016.04.23 16:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Good to see you Rattatti o7
Love the priorities you peeps are showing, lots to say in support of that but time is short atm, so....
If i had to pick only one thing it would be that all of Project Nova be written with all the back-end groundwork for eventual integration with EVE in place. Integration is the eventual endgame, i presume, if we're ever going to sell that to CCP:EVE we want to have the innate ability to run trials and experiments at low cost and short notice.
Further to that, a flexible modular codebase that could adapt to any conceivable reworks of EVE would also be wise.
PSN: RationalSpark
|
Vrain Matari
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
3177
|
Posted - 2016.04.24 14:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
Skihids wrote:Vehicles did not fail in DUST because they weren't in right at the start. They failed because they had no job to do. They failed because they went in before the need for them arose, and that need was never created.
You didn't need the dropship because you never had to walk far enough that waiting for a pickup was worth your time.
You never NEEDED a tank because there was nothing a tank could do that infantry couldn't do. All anyone needed to do to win was kill infantry and hack points. Tanks couldn't even hack.
Since there was nothing to do but kill infantry vehciles defaulted to that role. Even the dropship got a gun glued to its nose and became the ADS. What do you get when you compete 1v1? You get balanced 1v1. Thus the great tank couldn't be any stronger than a single drop suit and it lost its essence. It simply became a lager, more expensive drop suit.
Agree with this 100%.
Want to add that, valid roles aside, CCP never developed a consistent vehicle philosophy: it was a hybrid bucket-of-ehp/dynamic tanking model for the vehicles, but basic bucket-of-ehp counter-attack modes for AV infantry. It was doomed to fail, frustrating both vehicle pilots and AV infantry because of the fundamental disconnect in what variables controlled engagements(i.e primarily dynamic variables for vehicles vs. primarily static variables for infantry).
PSN: RationalSpark
|
Vrain Matari
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
3177
|
Posted - 2016.04.24 15:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Skihids wrote:What have we been complaining about in DUST for years now? The base gameplay mechanics!
We ask, "What's the point of this EVE connection if I can't shoot? Why can't I step up onto that low curb in my heavy suit? Why am I still getting stuck on this damn hill???"
So CCP says, "OK, we are learning from our mistakes in DUST and we will fix that in the next go-around. We will focus on game play as our first priority before doing anything else. We will start with small maps and few distractions so we can get it right."
Then we freak out and assume that "start with" means "forever reduced to".
If you've ever been on a large project you know you have to start somewhere. I think they are starting in a very good place. Get the core mechanics working butter smooth so they don't detract from the experience as you build it out.
Yes they need to keep everything else in mind as they plan, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that they aren't.
Tbh, if the nova team had focussed on anything other than core fps mechanics i would have dismissed the project out of hand and petitioned Hilmar to kill it early.
Vehicle gameplay is important to a New Eden fps in the long run, but there's nothing magic about adding it later, and this time we will have test servers. Vehicles have to be defined around the capabilities of infantry, and infantry capabilities start with core mechanics.
Metacritic showed us and CCP that core fps mechanics were a major and almost instant turn off for over 70%of reviewers, and ccp has indicated that the same was true in their own testing/polls.
Imo, the devteam's prioritization and decision-making on Nova has been flawless so far - it's easy to get the wrong idea re: loss of player control/COD clone/dumbing down, etc., but when you read all the articles and watch all the interview it's obvious that Rattati wants the same things we do(that doesn't mean we've forgotten the warbarge damage bonus, buddy ;) - what we're seeing here are the necessary first steps for building solid foundations for the game that will allow us to have all those cool New Eden toys in the future.
PSN: RationalSpark
|
|
|
| |
|