DUST Search - Open World or Battle Arena?

Bones McGavins wrote:

Buzzin Fr0g wrote:

Bones McGavins wrote:

... Despite all the claims of persistance, your actions ultimately feel 100 times LESS important then a match of Halo, because you see no real results... But it will never, nor should it ever, be a persistant open world FPS.

I disagree with you here. The grand vision many are describing is, granted, probably not going to be fully realized... yet. The genre is advancing and will get their someday. We are trying to help CCP push the ball as far as they can. I totally support 100 times LESS importance per individual player. Unreal Tournament/Quake Arena, COD/BF, etc. can continue the small scope style of isolated conflict that give rise to leaderboards and inflated egos. My brother and I, since we were young (10 years old or so), have desired to see a game break the mold and go for something different. Even if it sucked, you'd still have to applaud the attempt and ingenuity. WWII online is awesome in that no one player or their 1337 skills achieve anything. You need the concerted effort of an army to succeed. It's the difference between a virtual conflict and "corp battles." How about going even further? Remove kill attribution entirely. If you and your squadmates are shooting at a guy and he is incapacitated or killed, what difference in a large-scale conflict does it make who's bullet was responsible? All that matters is that he is no longer a threat. I do realize this kind of a game wouldn't appeal to everyone as many seek the individual glory and want the more immediate rewards offered in contemporary FPS games, but it would be cool to have a variety of options in the genre.

I dunno, you already have planetside for that. And what that game devolves into is a big zerg of one team running around capping bases, fighting small groups and rolling over them, while a big zerg of another team does the same, and the zergs never clash. Its boring.

The problem with a "virtual battlefield" is that war isnt fun. Its not fun to sit around at a base for hours waiting for a potential attack that never comes. And winning is always the path of least resistance, so fair, even, fun fights will mainly be avoided while massive, lopsided, boring slaughters will happen left and right.

DUST will mantain the fun of knowing you helped take that base, or helped shift that war effort, or took out that 20 million ISK tank and turned the tied of the battle, but will funnel it into fun, even matches where teams actually fight instead of taking bases where nobody is defending.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Buzzin Fr0g KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 86	Posted - 2013.03.01 18:47:00 - [1] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: Hope this is not too divergent from the OP, but arena matches between groups of players (not necessarily corporations) with agreed upon terms (reward, match type, map, etc.) and that allows betting from others. Discuss. I am interested in hearing what you guys think. Hope I don't need to say this, but I am: This is just something I would love to see, not something we are doing. I just want to get your guys opinion and feedback on it. I posted this before, in the feedback section, and consequently probably 99% of the playerbase that visits the forums missed it. I know you guys had mentioned arena style combat matches that pilots and infantry could bet on might be implemented in the future. If that is the case it should remain a minor part of the game. The main focus should be on planetary conquest. Nothing else makes as much sense on the grand scale. Planetary conquest, infrastructure development, etc. should be synonymous with Dust, not isolated battles. The former is where you can truly blaze a new trail and advance the genre. Everyone I've talked to sees such broad-scale persistence as the future and the formulaic COD style gameplay as a relic of the past that has made only relatively small strides since Doom's deathmatches. All that said, it would make sense to have broadcasted arena combat in a universe where clones and consciousness migration has rendered mortality... dead. Guilt free bloodsports; the crowds of spectators would be sprawling and a gambling mechanic would be awesome. People could see the rise of particular mercs and hire them for bounty hunting and other small missions (since sprawling warfare is beyond any individual's capabilities). A particular company, or group of companies (they could even eventually become player run) could hold territory on several planets and use them for the arenas (instead of infinite variety, use the same dozen or so arenas over and over to reinforce the idea that this is a structured league/organization). Mercs, soldiers, and pilots who aren't battling could sit back and watch the entertainment while awaiting deployment on their latest missions. Modes like CTF, DM (ambush), and even skirmish could be implemented. I don't see a point in ambush persisting outside of this framework anyway. Obviously this is just scratching the surface of the potential of such a mode, but it should be kept a secondary and much reduced aspect of New Eden. As for open world combat, eventually doing away with contracts that warp you from the merc quarters to the planet would be cool. Instead allow players to pilot a warbarge with their corpmates, arrive at the planet, descend (autopilot to district), and fight a battle. Let the two factions determine at what point the battle should end, withdrawing after sustaining too many casualties or the loss of too many assets (by this I mean a fluid determination on the part of the GC's, not a preset value). Obviously a playercap should be implemented, but make it high. That way corps can essentially show with as many soldiers as they want. Less structured, artificial scenarios and more freedom to wage war how we see fit.
Buzzin Fr0g KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 87	Posted - 2013.03.01 19:04:00 - [2] - Quote Bones McGavins wrote: ... Despite all the claims of persistance, your actions ultimately feel 100 times LESS important then a match of Halo, because you see no real results... But it will never, nor should it ever, be a persistant open world FPS. I disagree with you here. The grand vision many are describing is, granted, probably not going to be fully realized... yet. The genre is advancing and will get their someday. We are trying to help CCP push the ball as far as they can. I totally support 100 times LESS importance per individual player. Unreal Tournament/Quake Arena, COD/BF, etc. can continue the small scope style of isolated conflict that give rise to leaderboards and inflated egos. My brother and I, since we were young (10 years old or so), have desired to see a game break the mold and go for something different. Even if it sucked, you'd still have to applaud the attempt and ingenuity. WWII online is awesome in that no one player or their 1337 skills achieve anything. You need the concerted effort of an army to succeed. It's the difference between a virtual conflict and "corp battles." How about going even further? Remove kill attribution entirely. If you and your squadmates are shooting at a guy and he is incapacitated or killed, what difference in a large-scale conflict does it make who's bullet was responsible? All that matters is that he is no longer a threat. I do realize this kind of a game wouldn't appeal to everyone as many seek the individual glory and want the more immediate rewards offered in contemporary FPS games, but it would be cool to have a variety of options in the genre.
Buzzin Fr0g KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 87	Posted - 2013.03.02 00:00:00 - [3] - Quote Bones McGavins wrote: Buzzin Fr0g wrote: Bones McGavins wrote: ... Despite all the claims of persistance, your actions ultimately feel 100 times LESS important then a match of Halo, because you see no real results... But it will never, nor should it ever, be a persistant open world FPS. I disagree with you here. The grand vision many are describing is, granted, probably not going to be fully realized... yet. The genre is advancing and will get their someday. We are trying to help CCP push the ball as far as they can. I totally support 100 times LESS importance per individual player. Unreal Tournament/Quake Arena, COD/BF, etc. can continue the small scope style of isolated conflict that give rise to leaderboards and inflated egos. My brother and I, since we were young (10 years old or so), have desired to see a game break the mold and go for something different. Even if it sucked, you'd still have to applaud the attempt and ingenuity. WWII online is awesome in that no one player or their 1337 skills achieve anything. You need the concerted effort of an army to succeed. It's the difference between a virtual conflict and "corp battles." How about going even further? Remove kill attribution entirely. If you and your squadmates are shooting at a guy and he is incapacitated or killed, what difference in a large-scale conflict does it make who's bullet was responsible? All that matters is that he is no longer a threat. I do realize this kind of a game wouldn't appeal to everyone as many seek the individual glory and want the more immediate rewards offered in contemporary FPS games, but it would be cool to have a variety of options in the genre. I dunno, you already have planetside for that. And what that game devolves into is a big zerg of one team running around capping bases, fighting small groups and rolling over them, while a big zerg of another team does the same, and the zergs never clash. Its boring. The problem with a "virtual battlefield" is that war isnt fun. Its not fun to sit around at a base for hours waiting for a potential attack that never comes. And winning is always the path of least resistance, so fair, even, fun fights will mainly be avoided while massive, lopsided, boring slaughters will happen left and right. DUST will mantain the fun of knowing you helped take that base, or helped shift that war effort, or took out that 20 million ISK tank and turned the tied of the battle, but will funnel it into fun, even matches where teams actually fight instead of taking bases where nobody is defending. Perhaps sitting around waiting for an "attack" can be circumvented by an alert 15 mins of more in advance of an attack on a base. A contract is taken, an alert posted, and the two factions have an opportunity to mobilize forces to the soon-to-be-contested location. Separately, in regards to the lopsided battles... Yes, I support them outright. I know this opinion won't be popular, but I don't think "small corps" should be catered to. They don't stand a chance in conquest and hopefully CCP could provide another niche for them to fill. Every FPS in existence centers on relatively small player counts. I'd be interested in a game where battles are decided just as much if not more beforehand in the warbarge than on the actual battlefield.