DUST Search - We need the ability to form parties.

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.

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.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
General Funguy Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 58	Posted - 2012.07.02 05:00:00 - [1] - Quote It's a necessity in games like this. Without it, the game isn't nearly as good as it could be. There is little to no cooperation, so why not just play Call of Duty or Battlefield? Please add this ASAP so the feature isn't buggy when the game is released.
Milk Supreme ZionTCD Legacy Rising 127	Posted - 2012.07.02 05:11:00 - [2] - Quote Still BETA, this is expected functionality not yet implemented.
Card Drunook DoC Deck of Contractors 79	Posted - 2012.07.02 05:19:00 - [3] - Quote I've previously commented on this but can't find the post to link to. While I'd love to be able to play in organized groups, for right now the beta is better served if we can't easily group up. Let me explain: When it comes to looking for the unpredictable parts of testing a group of players functions as basically one data point. Seven players working together are functionally the same as one player, as far as testing (not playing) the game goes. By making sure each player is a separate entity CCP gets a wider variety of testing, which is a good thing. This is of course ignoring the obvious problem of what coordinated groups would do to gameplay. Without a way to separate groups from randoms the groups will win almost all matches by default (except when they encounter another group). This would make testing game balance useless.
General Funguy Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 58	Posted - 2012.07.02 05:20:00 - [4] - Quote It should be one of the first things added to an FPS. Especially an objective based one. This is really a no brainer.
Alexander Wolfenstein Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 18	Posted - 2012.07.02 06:26:00 - [5] - Quote While I fully expect the final build to have a party system, it would be great to have one now so we can iron out the kinks (any early adopters of Battlefield 3 will know what I'm talking about).
bolsh lee Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 35	Posted - 2012.07.02 16:34:00 - [6] - Quote Alexander Wolfenstein wrote: While I fully expect the final build to have a party system, it would be great to have one now so we can iron out the kinks (any early adopters of Battlefield 3 will know what I'm talking about). I'd have to agree especially how far this new build has come and the number of people that have recently joined we need some sort of squad/party system even if its limited to groups of 2 or 4 to keep servers from being over powered by dominant groups.. Not to mention a way to see who is talking in and out of groups !
Ender Storm Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 50	Posted - 2012.07.02 16:39:00 - [7] - Quote It will be on at a given time, and ceretainly will be on launch. Asuming it wont is nuts. Hell, it will be in game when the devs feel its time to it be implemented. We are here to test features as they are getting ready. Not to play a demo. You are here working. I expect the shooting be working before any other thing being implemented. More important things need fixing like hit detection and move calibration issues. posting int he thread 159585854905403543 about this.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.07.02 17:13:00 - [8] - Quote Considering that the game is intended to eventually be fully integrated into the EVE universe, and DUST players will be creating and maintaining our own corporations, I'm PRETTY sure the release version of the game will have party functions.
J'Jor Da'Wg KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 648	Posted - 2012.07.02 17:14:00 - [9] - 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.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.07.02 17:22:00 - [10] - Quote 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.

Skytt Syysch Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 235	Posted - 2012.07.02 17:24:00 - [11] - Quote 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.
J'Jor Da'Wg KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 648	Posted - 2012.07.02 17:29:00 - [12] - 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 - [13] - 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.
ZERO AURAZ Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 12	Posted - 2012.07.02 17:37:00 - [14] - Quote 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. 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. definitely need to focus on having a huge clan system and add space will prevent clans from dying via inactive users. look at resistance 2 60 people per match, clans with tons of people. resitance 3 is out did mention hundreds of game on resistance 2 are full. if we increase the size of people per match and add all the stuff to make a perfect clan and group system, also hire temorary members would be a cool way for lone wolfs to make money
Lephis Phoenix Algintal Core Gallente Federation 24	Posted - 2012.07.02 17:39:00 - [15] - Quote Only thing i miss is spawning by Squadleader, its my favorite Feature in BF. And it really helps to play like a "coop" game. (with friends and strangers!)
True Venture Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 6	Posted - 2012.07.02 17:39:00 - [16] - Quote J'Jor Da'Wg I totally agree with you on that. I like the Idea of forcing ppl into teams to be successful.
Skytt Syysch Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 235	Posted - 2012.07.02 17:44:00 - [17] - Quote J'Jor Da'Wg wrote: you are treating the beta differently from the final game It is different. We're supposed to be testing, not playing. Balance should come last. They already nerfed the heavies, because of everyone complaining, but the problem is we went from awful hit detection to decent hit detection at the same time as the nerf, making the nerf go too far. We shouldn't be balancing when there are things that can affect balance like hit detection and new weapons/items that need to be ironed out/made available first. Would I like parties? Sure. Do we absolutely need it right now? Eh, not really. We'll get it eventually, and when CCP feels it's the right time. I haven't had a lot of trouble playing with corp mates by us saying we're getting ready to queue up. Granted, we're not always on the same team, but you might get at least another person if there's more than one other joining.
J'Jor Da'Wg KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 648	Posted - 2012.07.02 17:45:00 - [18] - 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.
Ryuyoshi Hanaya Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 32	Posted - 2012.07.02 18:15:00 - [19] - Quote it would be nice if eventually the same corp system that eve has comes to dust which is what i think will happen because the interfaces for it seem very similar other than that in eve if you aren't in a good corp you don't get very far for lack of experience and whatnot for dust it seems like it would be easy enough to start off solo and find that corp you want much like eve. i would like a party system just to see how its going to be implemented and how the squads stuff works and to actually play with your friends during it. cause i'm sure you all know when friends play together we get into a lot of **** wether on purpose or not....
ZERO AURAZ Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 12	Posted - 2012.07.02 18:25:00 - [20] - Quote list of corps that can be joined(player and dedicated) a description, player count, name of leader if any.

ZERO AURAZ Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 12	Posted - 2012.07.02 18:28:00 - [21] - Quote J'Jor Da'Wg wrote: 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. dont force into teams that is stupid. this game needs freedom. but i think lonewolf is somthing with its own benefits aswell hire them as temporary members of your corp.
Max Trichomes Quantum Kittens Syndicate 68	Posted - 2012.07.02 19:33:00 - [22] - Quote Everything below this is purely about the BETA, and NOT about the final version. If parties are turned on, some sort of team balancing needs to be turned on. With total random teams you often get teams that are way out of balanced. Turn on parties and it will be 1000x worse. No testing is getting done when one team is pushed all the way back in their base, getting spawn killed when they spawn at their only remaining spawn point. Turn parties on, then make a real crude team balancing system. Look at everyone's SP or KD and place them on teams accordingly. Not having parties prevents testing too. There are some things I want to test, but I need a second person. Its hard to get randoms to test weird things that don't win the game. But weird things need to get tested to have a good final version of the game.
Ender Storm Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 50	Posted - 2012.07.02 23:27:00 - [23] - Quote J'Jor Da'Wg wrote: 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. I dont think you play eve. Everyone will start at a npc corporation. The real stuff will be done by players corporations, alliances, coalitions and powerblocks. People wanting the full experience will get tired soon enough and will move to player run corps in low and null security systems. People that just want thaat quick fix will remain in the random matches and high sec corps. Fact is, grouping will be extremely desirable and almost a prereq to make the game fun. It will be oin, dont be afraid. Its probably ready already, as it should be quite similar to the eve system, if not the same. We will have plenty of time to test it. But i have to agree with the others, grouping now serves no pourpose. They are still working on the basic game mechanics and getting it right. Once movement is ok, lag is ok, hit detection is ok, i am sure the "cherry on the cake" will be released.
TotalBreakage Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 410	Posted - 2012.07.02 23:43:00 - [24] - Quote General Funguy wrote: It's a necessity in games like this. Without it, the game isn't nearly as good as it could be. There is little to no cooperation, so why not just play Call of Duty or Battlefield? Please add this ASAP so the feature isn't buggy when the game is released. I <3 parties. You can bring the speakers, I'll bring the wine cooler and the doritos.
SuperKing BigNuts Trinity Council Test Alliance Please Ignore 19	Posted - 2012.07.03 00:56:00 - [25] - Quote TotalBreakage wrote: General Funguy wrote: It's a necessity in games like this. Without it, the game isn't nearly as good as it could be. There is little to no cooperation, so why not just play Call of Duty or Battlefield? Please add this ASAP so the feature isn't buggy when the game is released. I <3 parties. You can bring the speakers, I'll bring the wine cooler and the doritos. for some of the eve players, a LOT of these screens and menus are familiar to some degree. i would be shocked and amazed if they craft some completely new system for dust, why reinvent the wheel as far as set up. implimentation might need some fine tuning to make things run smoothly, but just like EVE PVP, kitten wont always be 'balanced and fair' whos got the bigger sp pool, whos got the bigger wallet, whos got the better backers, whos got the better experienced players. once they start allowing player contracts in low/null, i anticipate many landslide wins till the TRULY gifted player corps and the dedicated theory crafters putting concept to practice start to distinguish themselves amungst the masses. for those who dont play EVE or are unfamiliar with its content, current features of the Corporation pages include: Corp Logo, Alliance Logo(if applicable), CEO, Founder, Alliance, Ticker(short name), Shares, Member Count, Tax Rate, URL(if applicable), Description page(drafted by corp leaders), Alliance History, War History(likely feature to cover combat records, wins/losses vs who, kills/deaths, ?POSSIBLE? kill mails?), standings(overview of how you/your corp/alliance view them), other public information includes Sovriegnty(controlled space displayed on map). Applications can be set to enabled or disabled(invite only or no applications i forget off top my head). Private information includes: Bulletins(sort of like standing announcement boards), headquarter location, offices rented(corporate storage spaces), stations OWNED, recruitment details for those with appropriate roles to set up adverts and filter applications, memberlists with brief details about each member, decorations(custom medals/awards by type and lists of recipients), corporate contacts(player/corp/alliance contacts) corporate standings(npc standings), Wars(active war listing only, actually less informative than public war history...), Alliance details: alliance bulletins, executor corp(CEO equiv for alliance level), Ticker, URL, Description, Created By Corporation(alliance equiv of founder), Created By, Dictatorial(??? first time ive even noticed that option), Settled Systems(list of sovreigty of all corps in alliance listed), applications, member corps, alliance contacts, public alliance rankings. FEATURES GALORE, im sure some of this stuff wont make it to DUST, some of it wont be practical or applicable, but some of it definitely should(ie alliance details and contacts for once we can interact between the two systems) edit stupid formating... draft showed no line breaks when i reloaded it after failed post, sorry for unnecesarily long post


Pages: 1 :: [one page]