|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Avallo Kantor
1133
   |
Posted - 2016.04.28 16:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
As a general design principle an important thing to keep in mind is perceived mobility between play styles. This is to say, that players feel there is a low cost to switching playstyles compared to the costs of staying the course, or quitting the game.
EVE and DUST do this relatively well as it is perceived that if one trains up in the skills needed for a switch in play style (different ship, weapon system, or tanking style for example) all they need to do is plan out and train toward this new playstyle. Other games, generally have some form of obtaining gear / switching skill sets so that players can easily choose a new style if they wish.
Adding proficiency as a function of use increases the cost of switching playstyles in a way that can not be mitigated except by switching playstyles, causing a dip in performance. Having no way to mitigate the cost of switching except by switching means that players are less likely to switch playstyles (Guns in this case) which may seem like a positive to stop Flavor of the Month chasers, but it can be a net negative for the playerbase as a whole, because more people will become less willing to switch playstyles due to the proficiency disparity between their weapon systems. This can cause people to stick with a playstyle they do not enjoy, or switch and feel "cheated" out of performance they could have otherwise gained through more mitigatable switching costs.
This can cause, over time, players to choose to simply drop a game over switching playstyles as the perceived cost of switching becomes higher than the cost of just quitting.
Generally, games that have individual progressions per playstyle also have a way of making those new play styles play at lower tiers. (Making a new character in an MMO starts you at 1, or switching suits in Warframe puts you in content that suit can better handle.) In PvP games, or PvP focused games this becomes an issue because there is not really a way to bring the challenge down due to the challenge being in the form of other players.
"Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
|
Avallo Kantor
1135
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 20:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Avallo Kantor wrote:As a general design principle an important thing to keep in mind is perceived mobility between play styles.
-snip- Excellent post. This is a good explanation of the major problem facing use-based unlocks. +1 As far as unlocks go, I prefer a much flatter progression tree than what CCP Z proposed for Project Legion some years ago. I would have a few hours of play time unlock the base model of all weapon types. Then a much much longer time with a base weapon to unlock variants of that weapon. So, once you have played long enough to get oriented to the base game you get a message letting you know that you have unlocked other suits and weapons. (Encourages you to investigate fittings after you have figured out other mechanics so it is not so overwhelming.)So, once the base weapons are unlocked you have access to the Assault Plasma Rifle and the Breach Rail Rifle, but you would still have to play for an extended amount of time to gain access to the Breach Plasma Rifle. But then, the main reason to chose the Breach Plasma Rifle over the Rail Rifle is if you want to take advantage of your Plasma Rifle Proficiency, which takes time to level anyway. This setup allows fitting versatility fairly early on, while still rewarding specialization.
Unlocking specializations / variants is generally a better way to go about things than use-base power progression, especially if those specializations / variants are more or less "side-grades"
One thing to keep in mind though is that if variants of a weapon differ too greatly from each other, then players may feel they are being forced to play through content they do not wish to so that they can get to content they actually want.
As an example the Scrambler Rifle has a variant weapon in the Assault Scrambler Rifle, but I feel it can be justified in saying that these two weapons do not play quite the same as each other. So then you run into the problem with your unlock method as listed that a player will have to play through the Scrambler Rifle before unlocking the ASR, which may prove to be anti-fun to a player. As a general rule, you want to avoid players feeling like they have to play through undesirable content to get a desired outcome. (As a corollary to this, don't put valuable content behind annoying content because players will still do it, then hate your game) This, in time, can cause player drop off or players not expanding because desired variants are locked behind undesired weapon bases.
Now as a counterpoint you might say that it means we just need to be smarter about which weapons unlock which variants. As you propose above using Assault or Breach or Tactical to unlock variants in the AR, RR, SR etc. This does not eliminate the problem as described above due to the simple assumption that these weapons vary in some meaningful way. (Otherwise why have seperate weapons?) This variance, to player taste, may make one weapon distasteful but another weapon enjoyable even if the weapons were deemed variants of one another. (SR v ASR, or BAR v BRR)
Ideally the unlocked variants are of a more subtle approach than feel of the weapon such as Variant A having More Ammo per clip / Less Ammo total, or Variant B having less PG fitting, but more CPU fitting. These variants allow for tactical flexibility while retaining the core features that drew a player to that weapon type to begin with.
Weapons (including the Assault, Breach, Tactical, Burst variants of them) should be readily available to players without having to first invest in weapons they may not like. Although at the same time, your point remains strong that opening the flood gates from the word "Go" has it's own host of issues and problems.
"Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
|
Avallo Kantor
1141
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 19:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:Ok, let me lay out my understanding of the principals behind the weapons in DUST/NOVA in order to explain why I don't think there is as much dissidence between my suggestion and your concerns as there might otherwise be. At least within the Rifles of DUST the types of rifles are covered by the base models of the different racial rifles: The base model Plasma Rifle is an Assault Rifle. The base model Combat Rifle is a Burst Rifle. The base model Rail Rifle is a Breach Rifle. The base model Scrambler Rifle is a Tactical Rifle. Now, these rifle types have things they are good at, and things they are not good at. In DUST you had to commit skill points to Optimization and Proficiency to get the most out of one of these racial variants, but what if you are skilled into the Rail Rifle and find yourself in a close quarters map? That is where the variants came in. The Assault Rail Rifle was supposed to give people specializing in the Rail Rifle a close quarters option that still took advantage of the skill points they had allocated to Rail Rifles. In NOVA I am suggesting leveling Proficiency through using the weapon rather than allotting skill points, but the same principal applies. If you are not overly committed to Rail Rifles, then you can just switch to the base Plasma Rifle for close quarter rifle work. Now the specialty weapons such as the Shotgun, Swarm Launcher, Mass Driver, etc. do not vary as greatly in their variant versions as the rifles did. In those cases a Breach Shotgun or an Assault Mass Driver were just minor tweaks to the behavior of the base model. Therefor, while I feel your point is valid, I think the system addresses many of your concerns.
I understand what you are saying here, and my point in the second post was referring to the specific nature that some players may find variants of weapons more / less tasteful than the "main" variants. In other words, a player may enjoy the ASR, but not the SR and thus will feel punished if they have to spend any amount of time with the SR to unlock or power up their ASR that can not be done via the SR. So the point here is that variants themselves may share proficiency (and this is a good idea), but the variant types should NOT be locked behind using the main types of weapons as that may prove to be an annoyance to certain players, or even prevent players from finding out about a weapon they may like because it is locked behind a weapon they do not.
Fox Gaden wrote:True Adamance wrote:Did anyone ever think about unlocking say for example T2 ammunition types or something rather similar for weapons through the proficiency skill rather than having flat damage increases?
I'll try to compose my thoughts on this matter but CCP Rattati did mention that he wanted to introduce modular weapons fittings and such. Perhaps increasing your proficiency opens up the use of these T2 ammunition types which offer only minute differences but are still worth getting if you plan on using weapons in specific ways.
T2 might excel in certain roles light increasing optimal range or modifying a damage profile more significantly but would also come with more notable draw backs for players who use them like increased spool up times, faster heat build up, or slower reloads. I totally support a choice in ammunition types. Rail or Projectile: - Solid shot = Longer range, lower damage. - Explosive (or hollow tip) shot = Short range (because the rounds are lighter with less kinetic energy), higher damage ( because the round explodes or fractures on impact). - EMP burst = EMP charge detonates on impact. Low armor damage, high shield damage. Laser: (Keeping the reduced damage both inside and outside of the optimal range.) - Short Rang focal length lenses. - Mid Range focal length lenses. - Long Range focal length lenses. - Hyper focus crystals = Higher damage at optimal range, but greater damage fall-off. Different Laser lens types could be indicated by the color of the laser beam. Different projectile ammunition could be indicated by slight variations in the sound of the weapon firing and bullet impact.
Ammo types are a great idea! As expected of the one from the one true race of god.
A few words of caution: The more variables to balance the easier it is for things to fall out of balance. Having too many variables to have to account for each weapon can cause a nightmare to developers trying to make a balanced game, especially since as seen in DUST and EVE they try to make weapons with less range do more damage, and vice versa so the ammo would potentially have to change both fall off, optimal, and damage for every type.
And before the comment was made, yes this was done in EVE, but in EVE you generally do not have to worry about manual aiming and other factors. The human element of aiming in an FPS is both essential, and one that mucks up balancing one could do in a human free aiming system in a game like EVE.
As to ammo swapping on the fly, I would keep the number of different ammo types you can keep as a low number if for no other reason than there needs to be a way to swap between them, and that should be a simple UI / keybind and not be something a developer needs to worry about programming in 5 keybindings for.
Joel II X wrote: Prof should be something merc-based, not weapon based, in my opinion. If someone gets more and more proficient with a weapon, it does not mean a weapon magically does more damage. It means they find new creative ways to use it for better results. So, I think the skill should unlock something truly unique to that weapon.
For example, Prof in Ion Pistols would increase RoF, while the same skill would increase focus (weapon zoom on ADS) on the Sniper Rifle.
This would be a nightmare to balance.
"Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
|
Avallo Kantor
1142
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 20:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
Agreed. As a thought experiment on a feature, try to think of it as if you were designing such a feature. What is the method / functions you could use that would:
1) Require the least amount of new code
2) Be the simplest to write / read / maintain
3) Has the least number of "cases"
4) How could this be expanded upon in the future?
When designing features try to think of something that would have a small number of different cases, as each use case you add inevitably adds edge cases which can be nightmarish to hash out. Ask yourself this: What does this case do to make the user experience more fun / make the backend work better?
"Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
|
Avallo Kantor
1146
|
Posted - 2016.05.01 00:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Avallo Kantor wrote:Agreed. As a thought experiment on a feature, try to think of it as if you were designing such a feature. What is the method / functions you could use that would:
1) Require the least amount of new code
2) Be the simplest to write / read / maintain
3) Has the least number of "cases"
4) How could this be expanded upon in the future?
When designing features try to think of something that would have a small number of different cases, as each use case you add inevitably adds edge cases which can be nightmarish to hash out. Ask yourself this: What does this case do to make the user experience more fun / make the backend work better? Every consider that proficiency could be a super casual mechanic consisting say of 5 stacks of a very minor bonus that players earn in a session with weapons. The more you use one weapon in a session the more stacks you accrue however it isn't necessarily difficult to earn these stacks with different weapons. When you log out or if a certain amount of time passes perhaps those proficiency stacks fade away. Ideally this would represent how we are all trained in the use of all military hardware however are more proficient in the short term based on how often we use something. Avallo you mentioned before that earning permanent proficiency modifiers would not work because off the effort involved attaining them as well as how that would streamline player into FOTM behavior... how does this short term proficiency mechanic sound to you?
Hrmmm, sounds interesting. Depending on how one tweeks the build up / fall down of the stacks they could either be used as a session length benefit (aka by playing for 1 hour with a gun in a "reasonable" number of matches, you get max prof, and they reset after 24 hours) or as a daily log in mechanic (get one stack per day that uses that weapon. Lose a stack if a day passes where you do not use that weapon)
It should be relatively easy to track with a UI element, and other features that encourage session length / daily log in activity could integrate into it. (Get double prof stack with weapons on Tuesdays, or 10x free weapon of a type you are max prof in with 3 days warning)
"Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
|
|
|
| |
|