As a general design principle an important thing to keep in mind is perceived mobility between play styles.

-snip-

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

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.

I would like to see Proficiency in NOVA be based on use of an item, as in gaining proficiency through practice. Proficiency should be a 5 tiered bonus on an item that is leveled up through using that item.


Proficiency level would be based on:
- Total Damage done with a weapon type or subtype. (Would be a multiple of the weapon's DPS to normalize it.)
- Total number of deployments of a type of equipment (Or possibly total number of times your equipment is used. eg. total number of spawns from your Uplinks.)


The bonus should be moderate so that it does not cause too much of a disparity between new players and vets, but still large enough to reward specialization. (Say 3% damage for weapons, 3% faster spawn times on uplinks, etc.)


The level-up requirements for each tier of Proficiency should be exponential as with Skill tiers in DUST.
Eg. Say the damage requirement to reach Proficiency level 1 was 100 times the weapon's DPS (~100 seconds of damage) then the requirement to get from Proficiency 1 to Proficiency 2 would be double that (200 times the DPS or ~200 seconds of damage).

So with these numbers (which may be way too low*):
- Proficiency 1: 100 seconds of damage (100 seconds of damage total.)
- Proficiency 2: 200 seconds of damage (300 seconds of damage total.)
- Proficiency 3: 400 seconds of damage (700 seconds of damage total.)
- Proficiency 4: 800 seconds of damage (1500 seconds of damage total.)
- Proficiency 5: 1600 seconds of damage (3100 seconds of damage total.)

* I am not sure how much game time it takes to inflict 100 seconds of damage with a weapon, so maybe Proficiency 1 should require 500 or 1000 seconds of damage. Some testing would be required, and then it would have to be determined how long they want it to take for an average player to level up.

If you are confused over what I mean by seconds of damage, imagine a weapon does 300 dps. 100 x 300 = 30,000. So by the time your total damage with that weapon reaches 30,000 you can assume that you have spent 100 seconds with the trigger depressed and a target in your cross hairs.


This would reward players for specializing and inhibit flavor of the month chasing, as there will likely be a new flavor of the month before the people who switched weapons last month get to Proficiency 5.

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.

The only glaring issue that I think needs to be carefully assessed that if skilling up is caused by doing damage....we should really address how to avoid the issue of boosting and people sitting in the corner of the ship shooting each other and skilling up while ignoring the rest of the game. You dont want to encourage behavior that will take people out of the battle because they would rather go skill up in a more efficient way.

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.

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.

Hmm, number of unique individuals killed with the weapon?

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?

I agree. I could see it being something more like a swappable mod for the gun rather than something you swap on the fly. Besides, we are all just going to use Antimatter anyways ;)

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.

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

Double post..

I agree on using EVE names for ammo where appropriate. I do not favor being able to live swap in game without the use of a supply depot, but you could have a Commando (are they called Vanguard now?) with two laser rifles, one setup for close quarters and the other setup for long range. Might see more Amarr Commandos/Vanguards around then.