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.

Excellent post. This is a good explanation of the major problem facing use-based unlocks. +1

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.

Can I add just one thing - NOT using something for a period of time should result in the proficiency dropping. Anything based on practice degenerates with lack of practice. So it should be that if you use something enough to get its proficiency to 5, if you subsequently stop using it as much, your proficiency should drop, similar to something like standings, which can drop if you don't keep at them.

This would make "proficiency" actually mean something.

Extremely important point. Perhaps it should be based on the number of DIFFERENT targets that are hit, as well as the amount of damage over a given amount of time.

Extremely important point. Perhaps it should be based on the number of DIFFERENT targets that are hit, as well as the amount of damage over a given amount of time.

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 dig the ammo types, and I also like the variant ammo types for ranger to damage balance. My immediate concern is how this will factor into an FPS shooter environment? In EVE I always have time to evaluate my situation and load the appropriate ammo type before engagement. Will the average NOVA player have that time?

I suppose we could use user-defined command keys or macros, but do you see ammo types being selected pre-deployment as part of your loadout? Unable to change types unless you access some terminal giving you options to change your fittings?

Or do you see this more as a change-on-the-fly option during combat as if you were simply changing primary light weapon to secondary sidearm?

Eve names for ammo variants... Cause I would run around with an infrared and multi-frequency Crystal... Hate getting caught close range...

Double post..

Ah... Why not walk with your ammo? Take two ammo types, divide total ammo by two types.

Why do you oppose "live swapping?"

I understand if it's like I have the freedom to reach way out and now I can punish closely without worry

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.

Ok, back for a moment.
What if we are assuming primary and secondary weapon types (light and sidearm) where each weapon has a primary and secondary ammo type. In addition to that, maybe connect ammo slots to the suit based on class or something. I'm rambling...

Alright, so each weapon offers the player a maximum of two ammo type slots per weapon. At a maximum, primary light weapons can toggle either ammo type A or ammo type B on field and in action. It would require a reload animation as a hindrance. Same for sidearm or secondary weapon. Suit class may add an additional level of restriction. The lighter classes get (just for example!) 4 ammo type slots max; med gets 3 (even if their two weapons are capable of supporting 4 total); and heavy with 2. Numbers here are just generic to help illustrate my point. Also, I'm assuming light class as having considerably less HP to balance the additional ammo type options in field.

The point is, your suit class (however it's classified) dictates your maximum carry capacity thus requiring you to prioritize not just your weaponry, but ammo type that you choose to carry. If we have 4 ammo types per weapon (again, just a number here), you still would only be able to choose to carry 2 for your primary and one for your sidearm/secondary as a medium suit class. Or even less, depending. So in this case, you would need to be very considerate of what engagements you intend to enter before deployment.

A heavy in this example would be able to carry 2 ammo types: 1 for primary and 1 for secondary; 2 for primary with no secondary; or 2 for secondary with no primary. Each type being hot-swapable during combat but requiring a reload sequence risking a moment of vulnerability.

Suit class is somewhat useless here other than to use as an example. This may negate the point of having multiple weapons. It may also create vastly more complex combat situations to react to in the moment. He's got a rail rifle with a specialized ranged ammo? Let me just get close enough.... ah crap! He also has antimatter?!

I also think though, this would lead to armor and shield type specializations to counter ammo types. But this all is going off the deep end now....

OK. The general idea is put out. Sorry for the skitzo method of conveying it ;) Also sorry for possible derail!

...back to work.

Absolutely rubbish.

Weapons should not do more damage the more you use them, that's just pathetic and one of many reasons why player retention in Dust was so bad.

In one of the interviews Hilmar gave he said he wanted more realism, well guess what, a real gun will do just as much damage if fired by a 4 year old kid or a 40 year old combat veteran.

Novas not even lit and you're already looking at ways to get advantages over new players.

You're a ******* disgrace.

What's this "Breach Rifle" cr@p? I"ve never heard of such a thing. There's a breach variant of the Assault Rifle and various others, but the Rail Rifle is the base model of the Rail Rifles. The variants are just either faster (Assault variant) or just more powerful.

"Breach" variants of faster firing base weapons like the AR or CR were created as an answer to the RR being natively a better weapon for long range, just as the Assault variant of the RR was created to improve CQC use of the RR.

Unfortunately, your suggestions for the RRs wouldn't work.

According to the technology of rain guns, they only give kinetic and thermal damage. Also the nature of the charge is such that you don't get a choice of solid shots, explosive or EMP. You just get whatever isotope is in the charge, and that gives you the range and damage.

The T2 variants however are interesting, at least if you look at the EvE versions. One for extreme short range, like a blaster, and one for extreme long range, almost like a mini missile. These would be good to see explored.

You also missed out the other hybrid gun class - blasters, which are the Gallente variant, if you like. They use the same charges, but in a completely different way, and are far shorter range, but very powerful. The T2 variants are similar to those of rail charges, with similar long and short range roles.

In short the four gun types in the EvE universe are:

• Caldari - Hybrid/Rail - unspecialised T1 hybrid charges with specialised T2 variants for rail guns. Damage types Kinetic/Thermal
• Gallente - Hybrid/Blaster - unspecialised T1 hybrid charges with specialised T2 variants for blasters. Damage types Thermal/Kinetic
• MInmatar - Projectile/Explosive
• Amarr - Laser/EM

If you want to use explosive or EM damage types, use the appropriate weapons.

For a start, live swapping wouldn't work where the ammo type required a different rifle. Hybrid (therma/kinetic) ammo is used on blasters (ARs) and railguns (RRs and SRs). Projectile/explosive is used on artillery (CRs). EM is used on lasers (ScRs).

Swapping as needed between these four damage types would require changing the rifle. Even changing from thermal/kinetic to kinetic/thermal would require changing from an AR or variant to an RR or variant.

Re: proficiency over time.
In a way, it's six of one, half dozen of the other. What I mean to say is that I do not see actively gaining improvement with each fire of a gun. I assume we gain skill points over a period of time then "hit" the next level. Hitting that next level places our character on the next tier of proficiency. I see the steps from one level to the next as shelves rather than a curve. If true, saving skill points to manually apply on the back-end, and automatically gaining skills to then (at some point) "ping" to the next level pf proficiency are the same. "Congrats! You just reached Assault Rifle Level 2!! You have unlocked access to X and Y rifle types!! You have gained +2 INT points in weapon reload speed!" or is it more that with each kill you see a slight fraction of a point improvement in one efficiency or another?

Re: segregation of the player base.
Very difficult to predict without more info on NOVA; however, there are a few suggestions that continually surface in the DUST community that could be adopted for NOVA regardless of how new and veteran players are handled. Assuming players are able to improve proficiencies, modular efficiency boosts, weaponry access, etc., then I think we need access to both instructional waves of combat (AI bot matches, individual target practice, private firing range, and ideally tutorial-bases single-player objectives) and some form of level cap access to match types. I won't speculate as to what those restrictions should be applied to (SP, weapons, time in game) as we just don't know enough of Project NOVA to bother. I am also assuming there will be no open world exploration in which players can practice techniques on NPCs and other random players they may come across. That alone would cover more than half of my suggestions above in parenthesis, but I think that's a bit too pie-in-the-sky thinking. Also, less modular for development I would imagine. Without some open-world concept, I don't really see a purpose for security space (sadly).


*EDIT*
Unless "HISEC/LOWSEC" is just kind of an EVE-way of naming Jr. Varsity and Varsity divisions. "Join HISEC battles now for entry level matches capped at XXX where you can play in a squad or solo to annoy those pesky raiders!!!!!" or "Enter LOWSEC (oooooo scary place!!) for elite team based combat to determine the fate of the universe!!!" where we never really affect any outcome other than a EOM screen.

And therein, Rattati wrecks it for me. There is a REASON that rail guns and blasters only use hybrid ammo, which only does kinetic and thermal damage. It's the nature of the guns. Blasters only fire a superheated plasma derived from what's inside the casing of the hybrid ammo, while railguns fire the whole thing and allow the kinetic energy to create the plasma on impact. What you're saying is that Rattati would be willing to throw out ALL the science that's built into that, just to suit being able to put a different ammo type in a rail or assault rifle.

I have long considered a lot of the things that Rattati apparently did to Dust (I wasn't here at the time, I think) to be ludicrous and extremely ill advised. Interestingly, many of these things are what Dusters actually like about Dust.

Count me out. If you throw the rules out you can do anything and it's the idea that you can do anything you like that destroys structure in a game and leads inexorably to FOTM, which I personally loath. I'll look at the Nova Alpha/Beta, if I'm invited, but I'll be dropping it like a hot potato if I sense any of this sort of thing in it.

Interestingly I see it the other way around. The Assault Rifle was the close range rifle that the RR could never be. To compensate for that, they introduced a shorter range (not "short range" per se) variant, the Assault Rail Rifle. It's all a matter of how you look at things. The RR existed before there were any "Breach" anything. It came first. Breach variants were the long range answer to RR for closer range rifles, same as Assault variants were the shorter range answer to the AR for longer range rifles.

Yes, of course you're correct when you say you can put anything inside the hybrid ammo. But the reality of it is, the way it's fired, its kinetic and thermal effects will far outweigh the explosive or EM effects. The guns in Dust use the same technologies as EvE because, well, they do. What you're suggesting is that magically, Dusters will start using technologies that EvE DOESN'T use, mainly because it wouldn't work.

But even supposing it did, you're still throwing out the rulebooks and that to me just doesn't fly. I'm not interested in playing any game where all the limitations built into the game are removed in favour of anyone just being able to do anything they like. The richness of a game comes from all the DIFFERENCES. If there are none or very few, because you've let everyone do whatever they want, and FOTM has relegated everything else to history, then it becomes just boring and ridiculous. Sort of they way Dust was tending when they announced it was closing.

I would suggest it should be the other way around. Hisec should only be accessible BELOW a certain skill cap. Note, perhaps not a meta cap. Put a vet in a MLT fit and he's going to just wipe the floor with noobs. But restricting vets to only nullsec might be a bit unreasonable.

Losec and Nullsec would be accessible to noobs, if they were silly enough to go there. Losec would be restricted to experienced and seasoned players via the same skill or meta cap. Vets would not be allowed even in losec, according to the skill cap. Via the meta cap, of course everyone could play anywhere, at their own risk.

(Let me preface this with the fact that I do not subscribe to "This is how EVE does it therefor it is good" mentality, but I think in this case it's an example of something I think EVE does well)

I actually don't have as much of an issue with a damage skill bonus, what I took issue is WHEN you got it in DUST. I access the "Proficiency" skill in DUST you had to grind through 5 levels of "Operation" SP (and we all know how long level 5 takes) to get to the Proficiency skill to get the damage buff. This meant that there was a very long time between starting the game and getting that damage buff, which admittedly was a significant advantage to those who had it compared to new players who would not have it for a long time.

EVE on the other hand has the damage buff for the skill on the "Operation" skill, so it's actually the first buff you get, and then the secondary buffing stats come a bit later. This means that the damage buff is literally the first thing a new player will unlock when using a new weapon which instills a sense of progress and reward early on because damage is really the first things new players are thinking about.

Additionally the time scale is typically really short, so for example say Heavy Missiles is a x3 skill in EVE. This means that Level 1 is unlocked in less than half an hour, level 2 in about 2 hours, level 3 in about 10 and a half hours. So in the case of EVE where each level is +5% damage, a new player can get a +15% damage in literally a day. Level 4 and 5 obviously take a bit longer and provide an additional reward to veterans, it's a far less difference than what we saw in DUST.

This drastically reduces the differential between Brand New Players and Veterans, while still providing a benefit to veterans, but also immediate gratification to new players.

I honestly hate the recurring idea that lore is there to screw things up for people. It isn't. It provides context for everything that exists in the game.

That said I don't think we'll have a model that features four kinds of damage like in EVE. Well still likely have standard damage profiles for weapons and ammo types if they exist will modify those percentages rather that determine it.

A lena is right with some of his thinking. Keeping weapons consistent with the eve universe is a great thing however if it jeopardizes game balance then let's open up discussion with groups like the ISD or Novas version of and see how we can make lore work for us to suit game mechanics

Just playing devil's advocate on this one, but i think there is an ideal that was born in at least a few players' hearts when considering a CCP-developed FPS shooter and the implied connections and feathering with EVE that such a game might have. It is very easy to use EVE as a model for logic because it exists having already exerted energy to R&D, refining itself and internal rules through years of trial-and-error. Too, an FPS from CCP carries with it a default sense of expectation.

When wheels like skill points progression and blueprint function are reinvented (for two easy examples), that invalidates what has been learned already and creates an entirely new beast to tame when that very beast is already calm and resolved had it been used to begin with. In part, it becomes a matter of principle. In that view, what's the point of creating more problems by reinventing what already exists when there is a clear roadmap to be used as a model off to the side there?