DUST Search - Discussion - Should PG and CPU be combined into one?

byte modal wrote:

Moorian Flav wrote:

Pokey won me over. It does make sense that CPU/PG be made into 1 unit as there will no longer be 4 faction variants per class. With only 1 Scout, 1 Logi, 1 Assault, and 1 Sentinel in Nova, there is no need for such a division any longer.
That being said... Cry

Fair.
I think the arguments for justification (after the fact) are reasonable. My issue is the original decision to begin with in taking a radical departure from the concept.

I am building a square, because of corners.
Hm. That is a great idea! You should round off the corners to make a circle! That way, you have a circle which is an improvement upon your box!

But I want a box? You are building a circle.
Isn't it great!? With rounded corners you can roll a circle!

Hm. That is reasonable, I mean to roll a circle. That would justify having a circle, if I wanted a circle. But I liked the box because of corners. Rolling is of no interest?
But it rolls! Here, let me show you as I've already done it for you!

...
I'm only have a go at this because there's nothing else to do with it all ;)
Who else am I gonna gripe to? my ex? My dog's ghost? Nah. This is the only place I can vent this specific frustration because I know there are a few holdouts that can relate. So please excuse my snarky comments from time to time. It's not just venting. I still need to keep my smart-assary in shape. I might as well exercise that here ;)

<3


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 3234	Posted - 2017.05.23 17:30:00 - [1] - Quote Firstly, nothing wrong with a single resource model in and of itself. The proposal to couple passive/active modules to a dynamic in-match crucial stat(capacitor) is very interesting and worth exploring. In fact, i'd like to see fitting choices affect other in-match dynamic quantities: stamina/regen, tacnet profile/precision etc. This way what we lose in depth from simplifying fitting resources we gain in depth of in-match ramifications of fitting choices - such an approach takes what was two separate pieces of gameplay and adds meaning to them by unifying them around battlefield repercussions. We simultaneously make the NPE more accessible yet keep tradeoffs, meaningful decisions & deep theorycrafting for vets at the highest levels of gameplay. Disclaimer: Please don't take what's written below in a negative context, it's an honest question about preserving meaning in Nova.. Also thought of posting this elsewhere, but since other peeps are bringing up similar concerns, decided to put it here. Got to the end of this thread and had to re-read the thread title to remind myself what it was all about lol But there's a good reason all these other topics are being dragged into a fitting resources thread: Player experience. In Dust we had several interacting systems that made building a dropsuit the cumulative result of balancing multiple factors: scan profile, scan precision, scan range, stamina, mobility, defense, offense, passive vs. active, damage types, engagement ranges, equipment, AI vs. AV, etc. Layered on top of that was a resource allocation game that involved PG, CPU and BW. Layered on top of that was a risk management game that involved ISK, Leaderboard standings, skillpoint gain/allocation and finite special resources(e.g. Officer gear). It was here, where ISK loss = (time played and/or RL$) and the gameplay crossed over to real life that meaning was inserted into a lobby shooter. Dust had several other wellsprings of meaning, but this was the first that a player would encounter. What i've described above was just basic solo gameplay, there was more to fitting decisions than that when other people were involved, tbh, at the highest levels of gameplay a lot more. Encouraging the depth of all this was almost total player freedom in suit, module and equipment choice, with the exception of very few class-based restrictions: a hard restriction on equipment & heavies, a soft restriction on cloaks and scouts. Otherwise it was blue skies for theorycrafting+, in a way that didn't exist in any other online multiplayer shooter in the history of gaming. This freedom was gated by three things: skills, ISK & FW standing. It's fair to claim that the vast majority of players who played Dust had positive things to say about it's fitting system. In the same breath we know that for a significant proportion of new players the fitting system proved obtuse and was an obstacle to engaging with the game - that coupled with the risk of loss soured their experience. The real question is do we have to throw out the baby(risk) with the bathwater(complexity)? Rattati & crew are obviously trying hard to balance these factors. What are the sources of meaning in Rattati's proposed model? At tier 3 there's the guaranteed ISK loss associated with Script/firmware loss, true, but it's totally predictable. Feels more like a merc making an accounting decision than anything else. It seems to me the Nova devs are building their game design around natural human risk aversion, betting on the plausible hope that lower risk = more player engagement and hence a better player experience. i have to agree that higher engagement will give us better matches, but wonder if we will pay with a loss of meaning. Picture yourself entering a non-corp match where you see Cubs and crew loading on the opposite team. What feeling does that invoke in you in Nova vs what it would in Dust? For myself, in Dust, there would be several reactions: 'this is gonna hurt', 'this is gonna cost me bigtime', 'am i gonna back down? - hell no', and finally eagerness for the fight, prolly coupled with some ball-tightening anticipation. What would the experience be in Nova? My fear is that it might be something like: 'meh, guess i'll buy insurance'. Is fear of loss of meaning rational? Spending merc fortune like water keeping these clone tumors under control....
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 3253	Posted - 2017.06.03 03:11:00 - [2] - Quote byte modal wrote: Moorian Flav wrote: Pokey won me over. It does make sense that CPU/PG be made into 1 unit as there will no longer be 4 faction variants per class. With only 1 Scout, 1 Logi, 1 Assault, and 1 Sentinel in Nova, there is no need for such a division any longer. That being said... Fair. I think the arguments for justification (after the fact) are reasonable. My issue is the original decision to begin with in taking a radical departure from the concept. *I am building a square, because of corners.* Hm. That is a great idea! You should round off the corners to make a circle! That way, you have a circle which is an improvement upon your box! But I want a box? You are building a circle. Isn't it great!? With rounded corners you can roll a circle! *Hm. That is reasonable, I mean to roll a circle. That would justify having a circle, if I wanted a circle. But I liked the box because of corners. Rolling* is of no interest?** But it rolls! Here, let me show you as I've already done it for you! ... I'm only have a go at this because there's nothing else to do with it all ;) Who else am I gonna gripe to? my ex? My dog's ghost? Nah. This is the only place I can vent this specific frustration because I know there are a few holdouts that can relate. So please excuse my snarky comments from time to time. It's not just venting. I still need to keep my smart-assary in shape. I might as well exercise that here ;) <3 I share your frustration. Welcome to New EAden. Spending merc fortune like water keeping these clone tumors under control....