DUST Search - Passive Skills-- FPS and EVE Players Collaborate for Feedback

Leovarian L Lavitz wrote:

Lilianna Sentinel wrote:

Leovarian L Lavitz wrote:

Cloning Vats contain jovian designed clone reanimation units. Cloning vats are far too large and require enormous energy to activate compared to the new generation of emperian technology used in the dust CRUs. The dust CRUs transfer consciousness verses the entire brain state that a cloning vat transfers.

I don't follow. Are you saying that clones in dust are remote controlled?

No, they take a base brain state from the cloned individual and then replicate it through an entire range of clones before the match. These are your skills and such and why you can't invest skillpoints during a match. The data upon death is then transferred to these 'warm' clones without needing an entire brain scan and then complete construction of neural pathways via focused fluid routers. You basically only transmit a very small(relative) amount of data from your brain via the forth cortex implant which is fused through the higher regions of consciousness and local memory. The implant itself has solid state memory which gives the wearer eidetic recall, and is the main driver for the instant transfer of consciousness between the old and new clones while retaining the memories of events. It simply sends the memory data to the new clone instead of a full brain ten billion brain cell network map, which is what capsuleer systems do.

EDIT: I'll crack open my copy of EVE Templar One and give you a more detailed description or page number tomorrow.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cobalt Monkey Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2012.07.09 23:27:00 - [1] - Quote We may not agree with one another on everything, but working together we've managed to come up with a few proposals. We make them with the understanding that there is still a great deal about the game which we do not know. Everything could always change with the next build, the one after that, and so on. We hope for the best, but want to do our part to help plan for the worst. It's likely that no one side is going to be completely happy with everything that Dust turns out to be. But it's our hope that in looking for compromises like these that everyone will be as happy as possible. The Problem Passive skill buffs provide too much advantage over new players at no risk. The mentality witnessed in other similar games leads some of us to believe that once they have a sufficiently developed character to be able to easily destroy a new player with basic or even militia equipment, a very large portion of players will not move on from doing so. They want to get kills and win matches, and are not interested in building a corp or getting more ISK that they don't need to dominate newer players. All the incentive in the world will not matter to them. No matter how much bigger the payout, how much shinier the toys, they will stay right where they know they can win instead of going to the lower security levels. The worry here is that with this "wall" of characters with skills that are unbalanced for their security level, many new players will be badly turned off of the game. People do not play games they can't win for long, which means less income for the game, and more importantly to us players, greatly reduced longevity. Proposed Solutions 1.) Place a flat cap on the amount which a skill can aid a player based on the Security Level of the planet where the fighting takes place. Those playing in High Sec will have their passive skill buff's effect severely limited. Low Sec will be the middle ground where much more of their bonus applies, but not enough to keep the newbies from wanting to expand and "leave the nest" of High Sec. And, as always, anything goes in Null Sec. --Pro: In this way a player who devotes points to his skills is rewarded, but not enough to so strongly outclass the lower level characters while playing in their back yard. --Con: It's possible that with the decreased effectiveness of the passive skills, new players would ignore them in favor of other skills, meaning they would be less prepared for a move to Low Sec. Though this could be countered by returning to High Sec until those skills are more up to par. Moreover, since many of these skills are also linked to equipment unlocks as well as their buff, that may compensate for this problem on its own. 2.) Scale a skill's effectiveness in a manor like that of the Stacking Penalty on the effects of the passive skills, limiting their effectiveness overall. The more points you put into a skill, the less effective each new point becomes. --Pro: This limits how much an experienced player anywhere can outclass another without effort or risking better gear in the attempt. --Con: Like the previous suggestion, this might not give enough incentive to new players to specialize in any particular thing, and to skip out on skills they might need later. The same counters to this exist as well. 3.) Restrict access to cheap or militia equipment in High Sec after a character passes a certain SP level, or alternatively only lock them out of cheap or militia gear whose skill is raised past a certain level. For example, no free sniper rifles for master snipers when they're using that skill to torment those who can't possibly compete. --Pro: This furthers the existing gear price restriction that would keep people from going in with top tier stuff all the time while removing the ability to use maxed passive buffs in militia gear and similar. They could still go, but it would always be at a significant cost in ISK. They could not maintain an indefinite presence and would be forced to periodically refresh their stores in Low or Null Sec where they're back on more even ground. --Con: There may be a number of reasons for a developed character to return to High Sec. We just don't know enough yet. Now, there's one skill type in particular that is a real sticking point for me personally, and I believe a number of experienced FPS players will agree is out of place. Few of the EVE players may feel the same. Accuracy. From the view of an FPS player, there are only two things that should have an effect on your ability to hit a target. The ability of a given gun to be accurate. The ability of a player to work with that gun's accuracy to hit his target. Introducing a random element that supposedly increases accuracy is badly out of place in an aspect where player skill is what's required, not character skill. What these actually seem to do is to penalize your player's ability to aim well for as long as you don't have these skills. Furthermore, it introduces added imbalance to combat as fewer shots hitting means less damage. In effect, this becomes a damage self denial skill that you absolutely have to put points in to get out from under it. The RPG aspects of Dust most certainly have their place in the game, but aim is pure Shooter skill. What meaning can it have for your next shot to topple empires if the game simply decides arbitrarily whether or not you were accurate enough to make it regardless of how well you were aiming?
Cobalt Monkey Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2012.07.10 04:12:00 - [2] - Quote Good stuff there, Ten. Well, not exactly all good, but certainly a lot to think on. +1 While that would certainly curtail the newbie hunting, I'm not sure I like the idea of having to pay for respawns. Depending on how badly the game goes and how much you have, you could bankrupt yourself in a single round. I'm not sure how common clone loss is in EVE, but I can assure you it's going to be quite high in Dust. I expect you don't lose, say, ten freighters and clones per character per battle, even if it goes badly, right? So, I'm not sure how well that would translate from one genre to another. And while it's true that people would probably be a lot less reckless if death had an even larger consequence than loss of equipment, that loss of equipment is likely cost enough to keep recklessness in check to a large degree. We're still really waiting to see what exactly the various Sec levels will do to Dusters since they seemingly can't do the same things as in EVE. For example, how would Concord come get a Dust player? Show up on the battlefield and randomly shoot at you? That's the only place Dust characters exist that we know of, as of yet. So much we just don't know. Something else we'll have to wait and see on. For now all we can do is offer up suggested solutions to the problems we perceive might happen.
Cobalt Monkey Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2012.07.10 05:26:00 - [3] - Quote Skill cap or range per match is a nice idea. Wonder what they could base it on? Maybe Sec level, but if Dusters can and may have reason to cross between the different levels, then what might be a good criteria? A Clone Value Pack (TM) would work out better than a constant replacement, that's for sure. I love lore, and though I don't think it should effect gameplay, I'm curious. I was under the impression that for Dust it's only clones that go down to fight and it's just your character's mind that jumps between them. If that was the case, then wouldn't the Original (you) be relatively safe wherever it is that he hangs out? And it's the Original that's getting the skill increases, not the clones directly. Wouldn't you need to target the Pod thing to take out the Original? But Dusters don't have Pods, or at least none that we can interact with. Agh. Brain hurts. Too much missing info! Throw us a bone, CCP! Aww, they will as soon as they can, I know. It's frustrating though. EDIT: Awesome. I happened across another post where it's all explained by this Leovarian L Lavitz person. +1 to him. Leovarian L Lavitz wrote: Lilianna Sentinel wrote: Leovarian L Lavitz wrote: Cloning Vats contain jovian designed clone reanimation units. Cloning vats are far too large and require enormous energy to activate compared to the new generation of emperian technology used in the dust CRUs. The dust CRUs transfer consciousness verses the entire brain state that a cloning vat transfers. I don't follow. Are you saying that clones in dust are remote controlled? No, they take a base brain state from the cloned individual and then replicate it through an entire range of clones before the match. These are your skills and such and why you can't invest skillpoints during a match. The data upon death is then transferred to these 'warm' clones without needing an entire brain scan and then complete construction of neural pathways via focused fluid routers. You basically only transmit a very small(relative) amount of data from your brain via the forth cortex implant which is fused through the higher regions of consciousness and local memory. The implant itself has solid state memory which gives the wearer eidetic recall, and is the main driver for the instant transfer of consciousness between the old and new clones while retaining the memories of events. It simply sends the memory data to the new clone instead of a full brain ten billion brain cell network map, which is what capsuleer systems do. EDIT: I'll crack open my copy of EVE Templar One and give you a more detailed description or page number tomorrow. So, yeah. If there is a cost to clones, then it's going to be much, much cheaper, and I doubt you risk losing skills. If they ever assign Dusters a Pod though that might change.
Cobalt Monkey Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2012.07.10 05:40:00 - [4] - Quote lol You posted just in time to miss my edit. :D
Cobalt Monkey Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2012.07.10 06:30:00 - [5] - Quote Something else just occurred to me. The Attackers in Skirmish and both sides in Ambush have a limited amount of clones that can be fielded. It might be up to the corp that's ordered the attack/defense that pays for clones if they do cost, and not the players themselves.
Cobalt Monkey Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2012.07.11 05:26:00 - [6] - Quote This is the highest damage bonus we've found based on flat skill bonus. Quote: Submachine Gun Operation gives 5% damage per level for 25%. +15% for Weaponry for 40%. That's the highest passive I can see. And of course, if you add in more damage through accuracy, variable though it is, it's not an insignificant amount. Anywhere from 5% to the full 25% depending on player skill (which likely favors those with experience) for a final total of 45% to 65% in any given encounter. Also, that doesn't account for RoF increases, so there's that too. And it's only about 10% less on ARs. It's not insignificant. The story is a little better on the defense side as the most we can find is 25% to shields, armor, and bumps (I think 15%) to their respective regens. Even if it's only used to augment militia equipment, that's a lot better than the unbuffed militia equipment. And the thing is, you don't have to be a dedicated griefer to end up in this situation. You can be a casual player. No matter the incentive to move on, the casual player just wants to sit down and shoot people for a couple of hours a night. They'll outclass any newbies within a couple of month's time. These are the players who play a shooter for a year, hit the level cap (in this case, the newb slaughtering ceiling) part way in, and never prestige, remnant, whatever you want to call it. This is what you're up against, that mentality. And with the way Dust is never the same map (or so we hear) they're unlikely to get bored due to CoD's infamous "Mapathy." Plus, not having to pay an added $60 for the various map packs like certain other franchises might convince them to stay. Or, say they do quit for a few months when the next title shooter they play comes out. When they come back they'll have a relatively huge pile of SP waiting on them, as I understand it. So, even if they're not a problem off the bat, it's possible it'll still happen later on. Not out of malice, but instead from simple lack of ambition. That's why you need the stick instead of just the carrot. Without something to force them to move on, they won't. @Drekk, We do have faith in CCP's ability to make a new game, even if it's in a field that's alien to them. But at the same time, it's not going to hurt to bring our own experience in the genre to the table for them to consider, right? If they're good at it, then they'll certainly pick out whether or not any advice has merit. You could point out that this isn't just an FPS, and that's true. But by that same token, this is as much new territory for them as it is for us. They've never tried to stick the RPG and RTS elements into a shooter before. A little more to draw on couldn't hurt. I'm not sure how much weight a protest in EVE would carry when you're trying to influence someone else's game. Especially with the possibility of a counter-protest now. Dust mercs can always go passive and ignore EVE contracts. This certainly wouldn't be good for Dust, and killing Dust (and thereby dealing a blow to CCP's bank account) is probably not in your best interest. Or Dusters might even take down the info of those involved (you better believe that spying will go both ways) and simply refuse to work for them, but not their enemies. I doubt EVE corps would miss a chance like that to sweep an enemy's territory unopposed...
Cobalt Monkey Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2012.07.11 06:27:00 - [7] - Quote Good post. I do have a few counter-points, if I may. Is not the target of making Dust an FPSMMO to appeal to a wider audience and get more profit? After all, if they wanted to maintain their niche status, would it not have been better to go with a pure RTS element, where EVE players could easily transition over and fight their battles over territory that way without all the risk of involving the PS3 crowd and Sony? Surely RTS is more similar to EVE's sandbox, and much more easily integrated. A Starcraft in spa--erm, cough Another Starcraft? In going for the FPS crowd in any capacity, I believe they're trying to step out of that niche and move a bit more onto center stage. They're not like other upstarts in the market that the current FPS giants can sweep aside either. This is an established company that's got the resources and experience to make a play for the top, and they're already on a much, much better pricing scale than the nearest competition. Free for the same level of quality (AAA) and ever expanding content is just a tad better than the $120 you'd be paying for all of a CoD title's content, for example. Smacks of a power play to me. I haven't heard anything about character or race specific bonus/penalties. If they are in EVE, then I certainly wouldn't be surprised to find them included. I'd love a source if you have one. The more we know, the better we can tailor our feedback. If a vet's best advantage is already experience (and I do agree with you there), then do they really need a boost in addition? A vet should be more than able to handle a newbie on level ground, so why do they need the high ground? Gear is controlled by the price risk to payout ratio, but even in militia the vet is superior to a newbie in the same kit. Not just that he's better at the game, but actually better by default in addition to his wisdom. How much advantage does he need? The difference between rank IV and V isn't that huge, so even at IV there's still a notable advantage. Plus, if they don't go for all 5 ranks right off, then they can more easily spread their advantage around. Instead of rank V in ARs, they're rank IV in ARs, SMG, and Mechanics. Doesn't really help the situation. Lastly, on accuracy. If you're going to put points into it anyway to unlock equipment, then why is it needed to have other effects at all? Especially one that weakens the player's own skill from the outset? It does "decrease" kick and spread, but isn't it the player's own skill to account for those that's a major component of FPS gameplay? I understand the RPG roots, believe me. And when an RPG character gets an extra 25% to their attack accuracy, that's great. But you're also not the one controlling where the sword/laser blast goes precisely in that type of game. You're just designating a target and commanding an attack. That doesn't translate well to FPS.
Cobalt Monkey Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2012.07.11 08:19:00 - [8] - Quote Not to be blunt, but I completely disregard realism the second it starts to negatively impact gameplay. I love lore, but it's not king in a skill based game, which the FPS part of this is. Then again, this isn't just about me. Both EVE and FPS players have spoken in favor of such a thing, though not specifically on this issue. I'll have to leave it in the hands of CCP. Freedom of play is no excuse for a lack of balance. It's a sandbox, great. But there's only so much you can do with sand, and it does have to be kept in the box. You can build a sandcastle, but not a functioning particle accelerator. Your inability to do so is in no way a restriction on your imagined freedom to do so. By all means, do whatever you want within the confines of the game. But you have to accept that there are limits. I'm not sure how the newbies are being punished by having it so people can't walk all over them, and being encouraged and rewarded for moving on so as not to do the same.
Cobalt Monkey Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2012.07.11 16:33:00 - [9] - Quote It wouldn't help as much as you might think. Remember, the guns themselves would have to be set to a reasonable level of kick and spread from the get go. Btw, did you know about clicking L3 between shots? Kills sniper sway completely. Give it a try. :) These solutions are all geared toward finding a balance between FPS and RPG. All represent a great deal of compromise. The FPS crowd wants all these skills gone completely. The EVE players want them all left intact, and more added. What these proposals do is try to find a way to limit their influence somewhat without completely invalidating them. And remember, that limit gets smaller and vanishes depending on where you are. To use an EVE example, you can't bring certain ships (Titans?) into High Sec, right? Does that mean there is no advantage whatsoever to having them? Not at all. It just means that there are certain places in the game where that particular advantage doesn't apply. In an RPG the primary advantage of playtime is better stats and an understanding of the character development system. In an FPS it's player experience in gun skill, awareness, and tactical thinking (though all games share both genre's things to a degree). That isn't something you can put a number to, but here it is something that a large enough set of numbers can invalidate. That's going to be a major turn off for this game's target audience. What we've proposed doesn't remove that, but it does curtail it. Newbies are just that, new at this. They won't function as a well oiled team. And as many are quick to point out, good vets are always going to be off in the more profitable areas. I can certainly agree that there will be clans dedicated to helping out. I will be in one of them; [/\] Axis in Allies. We always make it a point to be helpful to those that want it in any game we enter. It's my hope we can get set up in this game as well. But any help we might offer goes for nothing if the newbies are chased off by impossible fights before they can ever find us. I will concede that the gear removal proposal is a detriment to those players that do want to just help newbies though.
Cobalt Monkey Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2012.07.12 14:56:00 - [10] - Quote It's tough to say until we know what they plan to do with those dead levels, and what the final stats of the gear will be. I'm fine with the passive bonuses as long as they don't grant too much in the wrong situations, but I'd much rather have some practical applications. For example, someone with enough AR ranks could reload while running. Enough Forge Gun ranks giving a slight boost to splash radius. Spec for Dropships and learn a couple new maneuvers. Such as being able to sacrifice shields temporarily to instead use that energy to pick up an LAV, or a few extra troops (think projecting the shield down in a bubble as opposed to up in a bubble around the ship, or maybe turning the repulsion effect into an attraction effect). Dropsuits could have synergy with their race's respective weapons, granting extra ammo or an extra weapon slot that only allows a sidearm from the appropriate race. Or maybe something as simple as a little extra jump height. Stuff like that is what makes me feel progress. Not a few extra numbers, but actually being able to DO new things. See, stuff like this is an improvement, but you still have to know what to do with it. Like the dropship example, it's a useful new ability, but not just a generic gain in power. You still have to learn where and when the appropriate times to use it would be.