|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
J'Jor Da'Wg
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
648
   |
Posted - 2012.07.02 17:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
And already come the arguments of the OP-ness of a full group / clan system in an objective based game.
Perhaps we should go the opposite way?
Go ALL OUT on the corp / alliance system. Empower the groups. Make people WANT to join them.
Add a full menu section DEVOTED to corporations and alliances. Make a sort of "craigslist" for corporations.
Corporations could bid for ad space in the marketplace with ISK. Once you win it, you can upload an image to the DUST servers for your ad, moderated to dimensions and content standards.
People could search corps by name, ranking, number of members, Win/Loss ratio...
Each corporation would have its own "front page" in the DUST UI with its number of members, rules, requirements, logo, leader(s), combat record, and any other information the officers chose to post.
An in game application system that would go to the corporation mailbox could be implemented. You could set your corp to "open" application, or invite-only.
Once accepted, you could view all the information available as in EVE. Corporation territories, and other things depending on your security clearance level.
You could view the members list, join corporation war barges for a friendly chat, and deploy with your friends.
Instead of encouraging lone wolfs, encourage people to join a corporation. This is an objective based game. MAG is a perfect example of a objective game gone wrong. Random blue-dots sniping, and clans rolling them unless they met another clan.
A game needs a community to grow. Historically, games that offer support for clans are the ones that stick around longer than others.
This is a chance for DUST to make a major impression. Make the deepest clan system an FPS has ever seen. Make it easy for a random to want to be a corporation member. Make it easy for them to become part of the "big picture".
In MAG, the game didn't fail because of average gameplay. It failed because Zipper did not back up the clans, the "hard-core". If Zipper had implemented clan wars, I guarentee MAG would still be alive and kicking. People want to be a part of the community. The people that cared about MAG were the clans who devoted time to it, and got slapped in the face in favor of the easily changeable randoms. The clans left, the randoms left, and now MAG is barely alive.
People need to think about that. You cannot have a game without a dedicated community, and even more so in an MMO.
In an multiplayer FPS, the best way to get people to stay is to give them the tools to shoot their enemies in the face. Stripping corporation and alliance power makes a boring way to play the game.
Giving players the keys to go drive, even if they wreck their car, is what makes people want to stay. If you give the players the keys to a flashy car OTHERS want to ride in too, then you got something truly special.
Think about that metaphor, CCP...
Apply what you have learned from EVE to DUST. Go all-out on it! It might be hard, but eventually, you will get a return on your investment. |
J'Jor Da'Wg
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
648
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 17:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:J'Jor Da'Wg wrote:And already come the arguments of the OP-ness of a full group / clan system in an objective based game. Only in the context of the beta, NOT in the context of the final game, where players will be EXPECTED to form and join corporations in order to get anywhere.
The problem with your logic is you are treating the beta differently from the final game. If the line of reasoning that "grouping will affect balance differently than it should be", that logic is broken.
The game should be played and tested with groups, as groups will be the part that matters. If you test an remote rep module when there is no grouping, and say its fine, what happens when grouping is added and that module is found to be OP when used effectively? The whole beta was pointless, because you have to rebalance everything to consider the fact that people will be exploiting them to the best effect on each other.
If you take an item with an intended value that considers a group using it, then test it with solo players, it shifts the frame of reference. A game should be tested with the end result in mind.
Balancing a game for solo players, then adding groups is stupid. The point should be to balance groups, then encouraging solo players to join the groups.
I say the sooner grouping is added, the better for everyone.
Yet I know that people will QQ about it when it is added. |
J'Jor Da'Wg
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
648
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 17:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
Skytt Syysch wrote:J'Jor Da'Wg wrote:Add a full menu section DEVOTED to corporations and alliances. Considering the number of new players I've seen ask over the corp chat why there's no voice chat in the game, I don't think this will do anything right now. I'm in favor of no parties just yet. I've seen what a team that plays halfway organized does to the other. It doesn't suit testing purposes, unless we need more data on what spawncamping feels like.
Thats a bug, voice chat should be turned on automatically, and able to be turned off, instead of vice versa.
And also, I am not saying implement that all right now. Just eventually.
But start with the group system. |
J'Jor Da'Wg
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
648
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 17:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
True Venture wrote:J'Jor Da'Wg I totally agree with you on that. I like the Idea of forcing ppl into teams to be successful.
Not forcing, just making the game an environment where it feels favorable to get into an corporation. More exciting, and fun. Designing the game around making corps the center of all the action.
No game should force you into a corporation. But a game such as DUST will thrive if corporations and alliances look more appealing to players than just going lone wolf. |
|
|
| |
|