|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
7999
|
Posted - 2016.05.10 13:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
I think that part of the issue here is somehow defining people who play infantry-only shooters and people who play combined-arms shooters as some kind of completely separate communities with conflicting tastes in games. There were plenty of people who came to Dust from infantry-only shooters and found the combined-arms aspect to enhance the gameplay. I think it quite safe to surmise that when Nova brings vehicles back into the game those same kinds of people will adapt and learn to enjoy them.
Keep in mind also that one of the biggest factors in crafting a game that lasts through the years is a wide variety of experiences. While Nova will start out being infantry-only on ship interiors, even after planets come out there will be people who still like the ship interiors, and both will still be available. That means you keep the people that want an infantry-only experience while also giving a combined-arms experience to the people who are primarily looking for that. As a bonus, the infantry-only people are likely to try out planetary fights when they start wanting a new experience.
Dust 514 was pitched to us in 2012 as eventually having Public Contracts, Faction Warfare, Planetary Conquest, some form of Arena-shooter mode with classic game types from other shooters, and various forms of PvE. Basically, it was supposed to have the same variety of experiences that has allowed EVE Online to be around for 13 years and still be going strong.
However, many of those experiences were not initially part of EVE Online. Sovereignty didn't come in until at least a year after the game released, and Faction Warfare was put in in 2008, five years after the game released. It could be argued that if the CCP of 1999-2000 with their limited team and resources had tried to make EVE Online then with all the features it has now, it probably would have been trapped in development hell for years before eventually being shut down just like Dust 514.
I was one of the people that was worried at the idea of vehicles not being in at first, but when I look at EVE Online as an example, I understand what they're doing. They want to take the slow-and-steady approach that has occasionally been lost but has most of the time been a guiding principle of EVE Online's development.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
8002
|
Posted - 2016.05.10 17:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
FraggerMike wrote:
That would turn the sandbox into quicksand.
"Open world is a term for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in regards to how or when to approach objectives, as opposed to other computer games that have a more linear structure to its gameplay. Open world and free-roaming suggest the absence of artificial barriers, in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity. Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in MMORPG or in other games adhering to the "open world concept". Their main appeal is they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behavior in the direction of their choosing. In these cases, there is often no concrete goal or end to the game. There are limitations to this autonomy through the rules of the simulation and its limitations. But the direction of gameplay may or may not rely ultimately upon the decision of the player, as in some cases this can be completely controllable by the player, the type depends on the requirements and availabilities of the game."
Agreed. Forcing a player to "main" a role just to be able to play it right when they need it removes essential freedom from the game.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
8005
|
Posted - 2016.05.11 02:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:I think that part of the issue here is somehow defining people who play infantry-only shooters and people who play combined-arms shooters as some kind of completely separate communities with conflicting tastes in games. There were plenty of people who came to Dust from infantry-only shooters and found the combined-arms aspect to enhance the gameplay. I think it quite safe to surmise that when Nova brings vehicles back into the game those same kinds of people will adapt and learn to enjoy them.
Keep in mind also that one of the biggest factors in crafting a game that lasts through the years is a wide variety of experiences. While Nova will start out being infantry-only on ship interiors, even after planets come out there will be people who still like the ship interiors, and both will still be available. That means you keep the people that want an infantry-only experience while also giving a combined-arms experience to the people who are primarily looking for that. As a bonus, the infantry-only people are likely to try out planetary fights when they start wanting a new experience.
Dust 514 was pitched to us in 2012 as eventually having Public Contracts, Faction Warfare, Planetary Conquest, some form of Arena-shooter mode with classic game types from other shooters, and various forms of PvE. Basically, it was supposed to have the same variety of experiences that has allowed EVE Online to be around for 13 years and still be going strong.
However, many of those experiences were not initially part of EVE Online. Sovereignty didn't come in until at least a year after the game released, and Faction Warfare was put in in 2008, five years after the game released. It could be argued that if the CCP of 1999-2000 with their limited team and resources had tried to make EVE Online then with all the features it has now, it probably would have been trapped in development hell for years before eventually being shut down just like Dust 514.
I was one of the people that was worried at the idea of vehicles not being in at first, but when I look at EVE Online as an example, I understand what they're doing. They want to take the slow-and-steady approach that has occasionally been lost but has most of the time been a guiding principle of EVE Online's development. "Combined arms" is fine and really pretty good if done right but no way should first person shooting become a secondary role to vehicles and surely vehicles should not set the tone for the entire game. How can you call it combined arms when a person can skill into one thing and ultimately end up owning the battle field until they force a varying number of people (based on the current balance) to stop playing a FPS and start fighting vehicles while hoping to not get killed by the people still playing a FPS? Dust was pitched as a lot of things that mostly did not come true. Eve became what it did because it was not attempting to be slammed into some role and they just developed it out to be a better game as ideas came along. I believe they need to take that same stance with Nova and completely forget about any type of integration with Eve ever. Absolutely not. I cannot disagree more.
Dust 514 from it's earliest was designed to be a part of the same living universe that EVE Online represents. The fact that trying to half-ass a connection resulted in one that wasn't as good as we hoped in NO way means we should just throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The reason CCP Rattati has been saying what he has about developing EVE integration later in the game's life is because he and all of CCP no doubt realize the essential truth that unlike EVE Valkyrie, they cannot make a stand-alone shooter that competes with other games on the market without being a part of that universe. New Eden was one of the biggest draws of players to this game who actually stuck with the game instead of just trying it once and leaving.
I also believe such a link needs to be both in a back-end (market) AND gameplay sense. You must remember the original pitch for Orbital Bombardments where EVE ships were a huge threat to ground forces, and thus Dust players would have surface based anti-orbital installations that could knock EVE ships out in orbit. I believe that taking that concept and designing it in a way that requires a more active approach and is more rewarding for both sides would address the issues of lack of participation that resulted from the sub-par implementation of OBs in Dust 514.
I see Project Nova as the return of Clone Soldier technology in New Eden via the Upwell Consortium. First they start with ships because those can't be policed by CONCORD, and then eventually they use their massive economic influence to force legislation allowing us to be deployed on planets, opening the game up for large-scale battles and vehicle dynamics.
As to what you said about AV weapons, very early on CCP stated their intent to set up Assault suits to carry 2 Light weapons specifically so that you could fit AV weapons on your normal suit as well as a rifle of your choice, similar to many other games on the market. That was also part of why I liked the concept presented in Features and Ideas Discussion at one point about the Amarr having a capacitor drain grenade, and suit and vehicles having capacitors for running their Active modules. You can develop assets for the sandbox that can be used against vehicles AND infantry similar to how Flux grenades work against both.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
8005
|
Posted - 2016.05.11 11:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:My replies are underlined in the quote below. Derrith Erador wrote:Okay, I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for being this guy, but from what I'm seeing, Nova is headed for disaster. I also foresee that I'm going to be called... whatever derogatory term groundies have for pilots, as my main grievances are, obviously, vehicles, or lack thereof. I'll first start off with non vehicle stuff, and go straight to the suits: 1) Not much variety really: So I'll be honest, I may have just read the wording the wrong way on this one. But if I am reading this correctly, then without further ado: The way I read it, it states that people will have to constantly play the same role to receive the benefits and reap the whole rewards of constantly playing it, to a point. [...] From what I understood, there will still be freedom of choice with weapons. Just imagine how Splatoon for the WiiU deals with progression for its clothing items and picture that being applied towards weapons as well. I know it's oversimplifying it but that's the best comparison I can come up with and so far the setup still allows for freedom. It doesn't lock you into a certain role. You're just expanding it based on how often you use it. That's how I understand it. I could be wrong though.2) Vehicles: I'm going to be honest again, hearing that we're not getting to be in Nova at launch was quite insulting to those who devoted time and SP to vehicles and piloting them. [...] I have read a handful of recent articles covering project nova which is detailed in the link below.
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=227484&find=unread
So far, NOWHERE did it state that the game will not come with vehicles at launch. You, like some others I have seen, are overreacting based on a tech demo that everyone should already know by now based on the articles that the game is not finished yet. Hell, it hasn't even been green lit yet let alone gone into alpha testing. So please stop jumping to conclusions. You're just making up facts that don't exist.
Just because CCP has not mentioned vehicles yet it doesn't mean they will definitely not include them at launch. So unless you can prove to everyone here right now that CCP explicitly states that vehicles will not be included at launch I suggest you stop parroting that rumor mill.
Now onto the solutions of this crap: [...] Based on how you overreacted over vehicles, I can't take your solutions seriously. Actually, in the interview he did after the presentation at FanFest, CCP Rattati personally said that vehicles would not be in the game at launch. That part isn't speculation.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
8005
|
Posted - 2016.05.11 13:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
Slayer Deathbringer wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:[quote=LOOKMOM NOHANDS][quote=Mobius Wyvern] As to what you said about AV weapons, very early on CCP stated their intent to set up Assault suits to carry 2 Light weapons specifically so that you could fit AV weapons on your normal suit as well as a rifle of your choice,. well then vanguards should have 3 light weapon slots and some type of bonus against vehicles and AV on top of the general damage bonus so we can have a special niche role of being the 2nd best Av and best killer of AV as well for example " Vanguard bonus: 5% to damage against vehicles and Anti-vehicle(has at least one weapon considered to be effective against vehicles except flux nades and maybe an extra 2% per level for each additional AV weapon so a vanguard would get a 35% bonus in damage against a sentinel with an AHMG and AV grenades when maxed out in skill) Gallente Vanguard bonus: current galmando bonus maybe higher" What is a Vanguard? Also, I think talking bonuses is a bit premature since we don't even know if we'll have a level-based SP system in the next game or not.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
8007
|
Posted - 2016.05.12 14:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:True Adamance wrote:Derrith Erador wrote: Lots of stuff. When you can tell me and CCP Rattati both how to perfectly balance vehicles in Nova from release onwards without ongoing nerd and buff cycles I think you'll really have traction with that vehicle complaint. As of right now no existing dust vehicle should transition into Nova. Not a damn one is worthy. I feel like if they aren't able to figure out balance by now, then adding them "later" isn't going to change that. They're just going to have an infantry only game that suddenly gets vehicles and it will be even worse than it already is. That really feels like something that needs to be baked in from day one, otherwise we'll end up with some watered down power up system like SW Battlefront. Guess we'll just have to continue the long standing trend of hoping removed assets get returned to the game. The difficulty is determining what role vehicles have in Dust. Some pilots like what we have now. I'd call those players idiots. Ads are ******* lame. Not attack choppers, not air to ground attack vehicles, nor even transports. HAVE aren't tanks. End of story. And LAV are like luxury cars with awkward and inefficient pop guns attached to them. If and when Nova does vehicles we need clearly defined roles, limitations, and strengths for vehicles and not just as side shows. I agree completely. If we're going to have vehicles we need to go full EVE style with defined roles for each class and size to make sure they're all useful and balanced. What we have right now is an awkward mashup that results in constant FotM chasing and a sour aftertaste to most vehicle v vehicle and infantry v vehicle engagements.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
8013
|
Posted - 2016.05.14 13:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Alena Asakura wrote: I still want fighters - you know, real planes, with real physics, aerodynamics, you know, wings? Then I'll know they've created a realistic fully functional battle engine.
Those would be a role, yeah.
I'm gonna level with you guys here and say that if CCP ever announces they've 100% cancelled fixed-wing aircraft, I am literally going to cry myself to sleep.
Followed by drinking.
DON'T DO IT CCP.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
8014
|
Posted - 2016.05.15 03:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
SAMEERio wrote:The game hasn't even been released and people are already criticizing the game. Dafuq? Yup.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
8016
|
Posted - 2016.05.15 15:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:SAMEERio wrote:The game hasn't even been released and people are already criticizing the game. Dafuq? Do you even internet? Seriously. People started saying Cyberpunk 2077 would suck right after the trailer showed maybe 3-4 years ago, and we won't even get the game until next year.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
8016
|
Posted - 2016.05.15 20:46:00 -
[10] - Quote
Press Attache wrote:DUST Fiend wrote: That game can suck all it wants I'm getting it either way lol.
And this is why video game quality has gone in the toilet, and the customers become paying beta testers. CCP doesn't have to invest any effort in making a good game to get your money, so why would they? He was referring to Cyberpunk 2077, which we still know nothing about.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
|
Mobius Wyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
8262
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 13:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
Joel II X wrote:The only vehicle that might have actually acted as intended might've been the dropship lol of they actually nail down vehicle, and anti-vehicle gameplay, then by all means, bring back planets, or introduce citadels so that vehicles have enough room to fit. Just make LAVs cost enough ISK to be taken seriously as an attack vehicle instead of a cheap ride. Honestly, I think vehicles should never have been balanced and priced as an individual asset. I think they should have been expensive enough to be bought by Corporations using taxes and then issued to members of that Corporation.
If you think about it, Dropsuits in Dust 514 were like sub-Capital ships in EVE, and vehicles were like super-powered oversized sub-capital ships.
CCP Rattati said the first link he would consider for the two games would be economic. I would say that in that case, take the ISK cost of Dropsuits WAY down while leaving vehicles in the same cost bracket, as that would mean match Contract payouts as well could be reduced to make paying for large quantities of Dropsuits fairly easy while trying to buy even a Light vehicle would require a lot of saving.
Before anyone freaks out, consider that MANY players in EVE Online specialize as Capital pilots, and many more probably will thanks to Keepstar Citadels allowing even Super-Capitals to be docked, meaning you don't need to sacrifice a character to them anymore.
When a pilot of a Capital ship loses their ship in combat, they are issued a new one. That would basically be the way it would work in Nova, because the vehicles would be too expensive for an individual to afford, same as Capital ships in EVE Online. This would allow vehicles to keep their powerful nature while cutting down on "spam".
Obviously other elements like map design, objective placement, and objective capture mechanics factor largely into how vehicles can project their power, but I think if we want truly powerful and customizable vehicles like we had in Dust 514, they need to be priced accordingly.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
8263
|
Posted - 2016.07.02 21:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I don't agree with trying to balance suits and vehicles at all along the lines of EVE ship classes.
There is no correlation between how they work.
EVE is point and click, DUST depends on your reflex acuity.
EVE ships actually somewhat behave like real world naval ships due to CCP opting for a fluid physics rather than actual vacuum with no gravity physics.
There is no correlation in behavior between a ship and an infantry, a ship and a tank, a ship and a fighter, etc. They should not ever be balanced as though one is a subcap and the other is a cap.
You can dogpile a supercap in EVE and abuse numbers. You cannot simply dogpile a tank in an FPS when there are even team counts in matches.
There is no behavior correlation between EVE and an FPS that translates from one to the other, so justifying making vehicles like caps and supercaps vs subcaps is absolutely unfair.
As long as there is a limited player count in matches, and teams are even there is no justification for making one player greater than another player. Doing so in NOVA would make it so infantry are the dumb people who didn't spec vehicles.
This is precisely the suggestion and mindset that has led to such idiotic imbalances between infantry and vehicles. I would rather cut AV/V entirely and not introduce them at all if the alternative was capital/subcapital balancing style.
You cannot balance dropsuits and vehicles as though they are EVE ships. It was tried before. What we got was DUST 514's eternal AV/V rage spitball hell show. And it was never balanced. Ever. It either favored vehicle drivers with a 50+ K/D rating and made infantry the poor tools who made the wrong skill choices, or they wound up being rolling deathtraps that were TOO easy to cut down.
But yeah, the attitude that vehicles should always be inherently more valuable and useful than infantry at all points was, in my opinion, just as toxic as the idea that "I have an AV weapon, that means tanks should be trivial for me to kill." Did you read what I wrote before making a knee-deep response?
The point I was making is one of a balance of defense and offense versus infantry. People keeping locking on "EVE analogies are bad!" without even considering the point.
What I'm saying is that vehicles in Dust were an upgrade from infantry with virtually no disadvantages. No matter how good you were in Dropships, a vehicle would kill more players with less risk.
What I meant with my example is that one should examine how Capitals work in EVE based on their ability to defend against and attack subcaps.
5 Frigates shooting a Dreadnought will be hard pressed to take it down, but they can eventually succeed if they prevent that ship from escaping. Part of that is due to Dreadnought guns having a very hard time engaging smaller targets, meaning they need subcaps of their own to defend them from targets they can't hit.
Regardless of nerfs in Dust 514 to Large Turrets, vehicles NEVER required infantry support to be effective. Their guns were always capable of mowing down infantry with even moderate aiming skills, and I say that as q CV.0 Gunnlogi operator who missed most of my Missile shots on infantry, but it only really takes one hit to get the job done.
Move past the fact that I used an EVE analogy and consider that scenario. A group of players encountering an HAV should have a hard time killing it, but that should be balanced by that vehicle's primary weapon having a hard time hitting them.
Beyond even that, keep in mind that 32 player matches in Nova are going to be infantry-only onboard ships. Rattati said he'll develop the game as far as he can take it, and I really doubt terrestrial warfare going to be 32 players. If we want the game design to be future proof, we need to plan vehicles around battlefields and player counts that can increase over time without resulting in un-balanced play.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
|
|
|