DUST Search - Proficiency in NOVA

Fox Gaden wrote:

byte modal wrote:

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?

BPO's are a good example of what not to do. With BPO's DUST really did screw up the Lore. (I will point out that the current Dev team was not responsible for that fiasco, and recognize the problems with it.) Sticking to the Lore they should have used the terminology "Unlimited Use License" or something similar rather than "Blue Print Original". By pinning existing terminology on a completely unrelated mechanic they broke the Lore horribly, not to mention the problems it would have caused trying to balance the economy had we ever gotten an open market.

AS for the Skill point system, I think it was a case of using a different mechanic and then trying too hard to make it look like the EVE mechanic. It was designed to "look like EVE" while not following the core principals that make the EVE skill system work. One example Pokey pointed out earlier was that the damage bonus skill was not quickly accessible to new players, so in the DUST system there was more disparity between new players and Vets than there is in EVE.

I originally liked the system of accruing skill points and allocating them later, but have since decided that the ability to save up a lot of unused skill points made FOTM hopping too easy. I think now I would favor a train in real time method similar to EVE, but with a default training plan setup so new players don't waste skill points before they figure out how to edit their training plan for their own objectives. Pare that with proficiency being based on use of items in game, and I think you might have a system that would work for a FPS. It would be a system that would include both book learning and experience.

But to your larger point, yes, there were things done in the development of DUST that broke Lore in a big way (BPO's being one of the worst), but while Rattati says he is not tied to doing things one way just because "that is how EVE does it", I also think that Rattati is more interested in getting the Lore right than DUST's original design team. I think we can thank True Adamance and people like him for turning Rattati onto the Lore aspect of the game universe.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
byte modal 731	Posted - 2016.04.28 17:47:00 - [1] - Quote Wow. Great point and counterpoint. I really enjoyed reading this thread. Now. Who do I get angry at for being irrational?! This is confusing my understanding of the DUST514 General Discussion forums!!! kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 742	Posted - 2016.04.29 16:14:00 - [2] - Quote Hm. I don't really have time to think on this here at the office, but I wanted to throw this out before I forget and maybe come back to it later. 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? If so, I suppose a command+reload key combo would trigger the reload animation of the optional type and that's that, but then we probably need to deal with carry capacity. If we open that door, do we also consider "cargo" weight to speed? Yeah. So I went a bit nuts on that one. Clearly I'd rather be doing this that what I'm getting paid for today =\ okokok. Back to the grind! - me. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 743	Posted - 2016.04.29 20:08:00 - [3] - Quote 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. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 744	Posted - 2016.04.29 20:18:00 - [4] - Quote ha... yeah, probably not. at work and just spit-balling to get it out. Maybe over the weekend. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 744	Posted - 2016.04.29 20:26:00 - [5] - Quote ^ yes, yes. like I said, I'm just scribbling here now so that I do not forget later. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 757	Posted - 2016.05.01 02:05:00 - [6] - Quote Happy Violentime wrote: 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. Thems some hellified conclusions yer drawin there. It wasn't weapons profenciencies that had retention low. Had some proper form of player division been in place you would have newbs vs newbs and vets vs vets. In a proper environment, proficiencies work fine. Still there were MANY reasons players didn't stick it out. No one is looking to create a vet dominance over new players. This thread was an idea of what will probably be of a few hundred before these forums are closed (read: a single, isolated concept based on reasonable assumptions). I personally believe one of those assumptions is that player progression in NOVA is in place and balanced for this proficiency suggestion to have a place to exist to begin with. Even as just a discussion point. I kind of thought that would be a given. Perhaps i expect too much of posters. Re: your realism reference, our entire species is based on gaining proficiency through repetitive practice. If not to survive, then to get a job. Or a raise in that job. Or a higher grade on a midterm final. Or practicing a guitar to cover a favorite song. And, yes, even in shooting a gun. The entire premise here is of proficiency. Or a high degree of competency or skill; expertise. While a four year old may be able to pull a trigger, the power of that gun has nothing to do with proficiency. The power is the same. The kid going toe to toe with a 40 year old combat sniper veteran will die before he's able to lift the rifle. That's reality. But we're talking about video games. Proficiency in weapon systems has no place in a video game. Oh. P.S. why so srs? kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 760	Posted - 2016.05.01 15:01:00 - [7] - Quote Alena Asakura wrote: byte modal wrote: Happy Violentime wrote: 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. Thems some hellified conclusions yer drawin there. It wasn't weapons profenciencies that had retention low. Had some proper form of player division been in place you would have newbs vs newbs and vets vs vets. In a proper environment, proficiencies work fine. Still there were MANY reasons players didn't stick it out. No one is looking to create a vet dominance over new players. This thread was an idea of what will probably be of a few hundred before these forums are closed (read: a single, isolated concept based on reasonable assumptions). I personally believe one of those assumptions is that player progression in NOVA is in place and balanced for this proficiency suggestion to have a place to exist to begin with. Even as just a discussion point. I kind of thought that would be a given. Perhaps i expect too much of posters. Re: your realism reference, our entire species is based on gaining proficiency through repetitive practice. If not to survive, then to get a job. Or a raise in that job. Or a higher grade on a midterm final. Or practicing a guitar to cover a favorite song. And, yes, even in shooting a gun. The entire premise here is of proficiency. Or a high degree of competency or skill; expertise. While a four year old may be able to pull a trigger, the power of that gun has nothing to do with proficiency. The power is the same. The kid going toe to toe with a 40 year old combat sniper veteran will die before he's able to lift the rifle. That's reality. But we're talking about video games. Proficiency in weapon systems has no place in a video game. Oh. P.S. why so srs? But, but ... In EvE, that's exactly what they do!! A noob can go to nullsec from day one and get slaughtered by the nullsec denizens. But if they stay in hisec, they're safe. The way to make things better for noobs is to have some sort of grading system so that you don't have noobs having to deal with vets UNLESS THEY WANT TO.... Oh don't get me wrong! I am ALL for an EVE clone with boots. I want sec space and optional access as a newb even if it means i die. I want SLOWED skill points based on time rather than action and money. I would even enjoy ammo types (or a simplified version) within the confines that you mentioned. I would love sandbox roles even for production carebears. I love getting dirty in 3d shooters but have always been partial to the calming effect of mining and mission running after a stressful day at work. It's like that black market hypno VR game from Star Trek: TNG. The one that brainwashed the crew? Yeah. Like that except EVE doesn't make me want to chase teenage couples around or make random weirdly inappropriate sounds as if I'm getting a blowjob. No. I usually just listen to the soundtrack and chill, when i play EVE. Oh. Spoiler alert? I guess. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 766	Posted - 2016.05.02 17:10:00 - [8] - Quote ha, I was busy and thumbing it all down so as not to forget. In my classic random-associating way, one thing led to another possible issue that had to be sorted on the fly and you got what you just read. I forgot to come back to it this weekend to tidy up, as I rarely forum on the weekends. I swear it's not nearly as complicated as it reads ;) kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 768	Posted - 2016.05.02 21:19:00 - [9] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Another theme has popped up in this thread, and that is the segregation of new players for OP stomping vets. Current thread themes: - Proficiency earned through practice with the item. - Different Ammo types effecting the characteristics of a weapon. - Segregation of new players from Vets. Regarding the New Player experience, in DUST I would have liked to have seen it segregated so that High Sec matches would have had a meta level cap, with new players only getting access to Low Sec matches (which would have had no meta level cap) when they created a fit above a certain meta level. But I don't think there is going to be as much of a gear discrepancy in NOVA between new players and Vets. It looks like new players with have Vet level gear, they will just be very limited in gear variety. So, what would be the best way to setup a High Sec (~safer), Low Sec (not safe), Null Sec (Wild West/ lawless/anything goes) dynamic in an FPS game like NOVA? Or at least, how would you suggest setting up a New Player friendly area and an anything goes Vet area? 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: ammo types. Please see my rat's nest of a reply probably around page 2 (lol?) that I may or may not ever rewrite for less risk of aneurysm. 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. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 773	Posted - 2016.05.03 18:09:00 - [10] - Quote 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? kitten bacon taco (nom)

byte modal 773	Posted - 2016.05.03 19:37:00 - [11] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: byte modal wrote: 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? BPO's are a good example of what not to do. With BPO's DUST really did screw up the Lore. (I will point out that the current Dev team was not responsible for that fiasco, and recognize the problems with it.) Sticking to the Lore they should have used the terminology "Unlimited Use License" or something similar rather than "Blue Print Original". By pinning existing terminology on a completely unrelated mechanic they broke the Lore horribly, not to mention the problems it would have caused trying to balance the economy had we ever gotten an open market. AS for the Skill point system, I think it was a case of using a different mechanic and then trying too hard to make it look like the EVE mechanic. It was designed to "look like EVE" while not following the core principals that make the EVE skill system work. One example Pokey pointed out earlier was that the damage bonus skill was not quickly accessible to new players, so in the DUST system there was more disparity between new players and Vets than there is in EVE. I originally liked the system of accruing skill points and allocating them later, but have since decided that the ability to save up a lot of unused skill points made FOTM hopping too easy. I think now I would favor a train in real time method similar to EVE, but with a default training plan setup so new players don't waste skill points before they figure out how to edit their training plan for their own objectives. Pare that with proficiency being based on use of items in game, and I think you might have a system that would work for a FPS. It would be a system that would include both book learning and experience. But to your larger point, yes, there were things done in the development of DUST that broke Lore in a big way (BPO's being one of the worst), but while Rattati says he is not tied to doing things one way just because "that is how EVE does it", I also think that Rattati is more interested in getting the Lore right than DUST's original design team. I think we can thank True Adamance and people like him for turning Rattati onto the Lore aspect of the game universe. Well, to clarify: me bringing up SP was more to do with how we can actively gain more SP in DUST as opposed to the passive build over time in EVE. Too, to a lesser degree (but more related to your point) is that DUST SP was a single pool of points. In EVE you activate a very specific skill, and time ticks away. *There would be no gaining SP in one* skill to then dumb that surplus into another unrelated skill*. DUST seemed to have missed both of those risks. At least the earlier developers did, as you noted. On that, I am aware that mistakes were make in early development. Secondary development was more just trying to make the best of what was given. That is fair. Regarding Pokey's comment of damage proficiencies being in the wrong order, I agree. This is just another detail to a larger mishandling of what could have hypothetically* been a much easier path to navigate using EVE as a model to follow. That's neither here nor there in the case of DUST; but, there are lessons that can be carried into NOVA if those lessons have been learned. And I think that is a point (partially) some posters are trying to make that might come off unintentionally as opposition---which is what kind of triggered my post that you quoted. Whichever position I ended up taking, I believe there are still players that maintain the ideology that I mentioned in my earlier post. To those players, compromise has already corrupted perception of realistic expectation. Once/if that corruption becomes the baseline for future development, then there is little hope of ever seeing what some of us had hoped for well before DUST was even hinted to. "Well, we tried it the old way and it didn't work, so let's try something new." The problem there is that the old way was severely modified to such an extent that it could have never worked, nor was it ever in the spirit of that old way. While I agree, it may be pessimistic to jump to the conclusion that development will go that path, I can also empathize why so many may assume that path to be the next predictable step given the history here. OK. I've drifted off point far enough. I think we are both fairly clear on what we are discussing here and what our contexts are in developing those opinions. kitten bacon taco (nom)