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.

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.

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?

Something you will learn very quickly is that Rattati really doesn't care if something is done a certain way in EVE. If it makes sense to him in an FPS setting, he will do it regardless of how EVE does it.

I'm not saying either of us is right or wrong, I'm just saying that "Because EVE does it this way" is typically not a valid argument in Rattatis eyes unless there is other reasons to back it up.

As you yourself explain, the Breach versions of other rifles were there to compete with the Rail Rifle. Essentially the Rail Rifle filled the "Breach" role among the racial rifles. I was calling it the Breach Rail Rifle for clarity, to remind people that the base Rail Rifle had the characteristics common to the Breach rifle variants.

In DUST only the Plasma Rifle carried its variant name (Assault Rifle) at the base version.

A rail gun propels the round up the barrel using magnetism. You can put an explosive in an iron shell and fire it out of a rail gun. What do you think Antimatter ammunition is in EVE? It is just Antimatter held in containment within the round, which is released when the round it destroyed by the kinetic impact. Rail damage is restricted to Kinetic (Primary) and thermal (Secondary) in EVE for game balance reasons. NOVA may or may not (probably not) use the same damage type balance as EVE. (Dust mainly used Shield and Armor damage with a little Explosive to represent AOE, rather than EVE's Kinetic, Thermal, Explosive, and EMP damage types.)


I left out plasma weapons because I could not think of any good examples off the top of my head. However, cooler plasma would be more coherent, allowing the round to maintain cohesion over a longer distance, but would contain less thermal energy and would therefore do less damage. Hotter plasma would do more damage, but would dissipate more quickly, giving it a much sorter range.

If they decide to use the same damage type balance as they used in EVE, then you have a point. If they do, then those restrictions to damage will apply. But there is no guarantee that they will use the same damage type balance. DUST did not.

Lore wise, if you make a small Flux grenade and mount it at the front of a casing of explosive powder, then you have EMP projectile ammo. If you put a miniature flux grenade in an iron case you have EMP rail ammo.

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?

I suppose it would be more realistic if experience with a weapon decreased reload times (because you get faster with practice), reduced kick (as you learn to compensate for the kick and bring it back to true zero more efficiently), or improved rang (as you learn to compensate for bullet drop or the effect of crosswinds), but % damage is a stat that is easier to apply across the board.

Still, I suppose you have a point... about a damage bonus not being realistic, at least. I think you are off a bit in your assessment of my motivations.

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.

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.

As I said, if there is a good reason gameplay reason for it he's all in. But he won't make something that is bad for the game "because lore". I'm not saying he's completely insensitive to lore, but I am saying that he knows not everything translates 1:1 and he won't keep something if it doesn't.

I'll admit that things are the way they are in EVE (In most cases) for a good reason. But that's not 100% always true when you try to apply the same concepts to an FPS game. And don't think I'm specifically ragging on ammo, AI think that one won't be problematic, just making a general statement.

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?

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.

I am not sure what has gotten your panties in a knot. EVE has different ammo types that can be swapped to change damage, range, and damage type profiles for a weapon.

Or was it that I suggested earlier having Explosive or EMP rounds for Rail or Projectile? If an Explosive or EMP round can be made small enough it can certainly be pushed down a barrel by an explosion, or pulled down a barrel by a magnetic relay (assuming iron content). They probably don't have that for Rail ammo in EVE because for some stupid reason which makes little sense they use the same ammo in EVE for both Rail and Plasma weapons. An Explosive or EMP round would lose its properties when converted to plasma, so that prevents those two damage types from being included in hybrid ammo.

That does not mean it would be unrealistic to include them in NOVA as long as different ammo is used for Rail weapons than what is used for plasma weapons (Blasters).


Edit: I am fairly sure this is more of a misunderstanding between me, you, and Pokey than an actual conflict of beliefs/values.

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.