DUST Search - Why are the game modes still simple after 1 year?

Mac Dac wrote:

Mavado V Noriega wrote:

Iron Wolf Saber wrote:

KryptixX wrote:

Iron Wolf Saber wrote:

Lore.

Game modes that doesn't make sense in war are not currently in.

CTF, Free for all, and other game modes maybe even racing one day.

There may be a CTF like game in the future that is war involved (capture the launch codes) first team to 3/5 launch codes one shots the mcc.

So whats the deal with Skirmish 1.0?

and no only read the title... gambled on the chances the subject material was going to be the same as the last 20 threads about this and sure enough after a second read it is.

Hopefully coming back once the defender vs attacker imbalances are worked out and technology allows (apparently it was scrapped due to issues)

The basic 'front line' mechanic might also return separately for different game modes.

I am not saying I disagree with not having new game modes, I am just saying there is a reason why some game modes are not in yet because they do not fit the war theme yet.

Either way other half of the answer I guess would be code, CCP Logic Loop has his hands full working on socket behavior and map generation and game modes.

The other massive hurdle of designing game modes is designing maps to work with it. Capture the port works well on most maps. Where domination needs more forethought into flow and control. Would be awful if the defenders where forced back but they walled up on the edge of the transition zone red zoning everyone dead.

Either way the official answer is probably going to cite more complicated than its seems.

sorry but even skirmish 1.0 was very basic
look at the vids

skirmsh 1.0 might have been basic but it was still one of the best and open game modes we ever had so far. surely you have to agree.

even the two maps we had seemed more fun then the maps were on now and there the same.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 3523	Posted - 2013.04.23 02:03:00 - [31] - Quote Kiro Justice wrote: Tolen Rosas wrote: u fanboys kidding? game cant continue with modes we would expect in quake 1.0. gamemodes have to have variety. domination crap they mentioned will hold my attention for 2 weeks after may 6. three modes in a year? no way man. Then quit. Telling everyone who has complaints about the game to quit will only hurt the game. Negative feedback lets the devs know what needs fixing and improving.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1326	Posted - 2013.04.23 02:12:00 - [32] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Kiro Justice wrote: Tolen Rosas wrote: u fanboys kidding? game cant continue with modes we would expect in quake 1.0. gamemodes have to have variety. domination crap they mentioned will hold my attention for 2 weeks after may 6. three modes in a year? no way man. Then quit. Telling everyone who has complaints about the game to quit will only hurt the game. Negative feedback lets the devs know what needs fixing and improving. It's nice when that negative feedback can be given in a more constructive manner, though. Still seems interesting to see the sheer number of people who will apparently still be grinding pub matches after the next patch, whereas I intend to exit PC only to do FW matches. Matchmaking holds no appeal for me.
Mithridates VI DUST 411 937	Posted - 2013.04.23 02:13:00 - [33] - Quote Kiro Justice wrote: Tolen Rosas wrote: u fanboys kidding? game cant continue with modes we would expect in quake 1.0. gamemodes have to have variety. domination crap they mentioned will hold my attention for 2 weeks after may 6. three modes in a year? no way man. Then quit. Seriously, considering how often CCP have made it clear (through their actions and outright stating it) that without massive amounts of fuss from the playerbase, they actually don't know what we want... negative feedback, however outrageous it is to you, has a very important part to play. Telling people with criticisms to GTFO is ridiculous and suggests some kind of strange, misplaced personal investment in CCP's honour which we would hope they are quite capable of managing on their own. Coming to CCP's aid in what you perceive to be forum arguments is pointless. They're big boys, they can take care of themselves.
DustMercsBlog Galactic News Network 45	Posted - 2013.04.23 02:19:00 - [34] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Lore. Game modes that doesn't make sense in war are not currently in. CTF, Free for all, and other game modes maybe even racing one day. There may be a CTF like game in the future that is war involved (capture the launch codes) first team to 3/5 launch codes one shots the mcc. we normally agree with you Iron Wolf but this seems off. Lorewise EVE is as deep and varied as they come. Dust can support virtually any game mode they like provided the devs feel like being creative. We've always supported the idea of game modes as different contract types. that way corps can choose specific types of experiences be it protecting a VIP, guarding a convoy or destroying a space station. in this very thread someone already mentioned three viable game types. every experience being a variation of skirmish is not a good idea. We're sure you read Templar One. This book alone outlines a number of contract types that should be options for corps to accept and choose from. TBH its almost embarassing for a game with this much lore to be limping along with modes we'd expect to see in a PS2 game.
KryptixX Imperfects Negative-Feedback 388	Posted - 2013.04.23 02:22:00 - [35] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Kiro Justice wrote: Tolen Rosas wrote: u fanboys kidding? game cant continue with modes we would expect in quake 1.0. gamemodes have to have variety. domination crap they mentioned will hold my attention for 2 weeks after may 6. three modes in a year? no way man. Then quit. Telling everyone who has complaints about the game to quit will only hurt the game. Negative feedback lets the devs know what needs fixing and improving. We do our best.
Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming EoN. 2830	Posted - 2013.04.23 02:23:00 - [36] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: To the OP, I share your dissapointment, I'm so bored with Dust because of lack of modes (and maps) that I don't even play anymore, and won't play until the new build. There is hope though: "Skirmish 1.0" is being worked on as code name "Infiltration". "Conquest" is also in the works, but is comes along with a much more sweeping set of features which I can't talk about at the moment. (CLICK HERE) Conquest mode is not referring to planetary conquest, but a game mode they alluded to back last fanfest, and said it would be bigger than Skirmish (1.0). i know what conquest is i dont expect that for a couple years tbh Skirmish 1.0 is still basic and simple modes need more to do and side stuff.
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 55	Posted - 2013.04.23 02:25:00 - [37] - Quote Kiro Justice wrote: Tolen Rosas wrote: u fanboys kidding? game cant continue with modes we would expect in quake 1.0. gamemodes have to have variety. domination crap they mentioned will hold my attention for 2 weeks after may 6. three modes in a year? no way man. Then quit. thats really mature. I for one like hearing from the more casual players who dont have the numbers necessary for PC and FW. How will the game keep them interested? scoff at the casual players all you like but know that they area vital part of keeping the game afloat. No company will support a title that isnt profitable, I dont care what they tell you. No game is too good for the 'we have decided to move in a different direction' press release.
Himiko Kuronaga SyNergy Gaming EoN. 149	Posted - 2013.04.23 03:21:00 - [38] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Kiro Justice wrote: Tolen Rosas wrote: u fanboys kidding? game cant continue with modes we would expect in quake 1.0. gamemodes have to have variety. domination crap they mentioned will hold my attention for 2 weeks after may 6. three modes in a year? no way man. Then quit. Telling everyone who has complaints about the game to quit will only hurt the game. Negative feedback lets the devs know what needs fixing and improving. It's nice when that negative feedback can be given in a more constructive manner, though. Still seems interesting to see the sheer number of people who will apparently still be grinding pub matches after the next patch, whereas I intend to exit PC only to do FW matches. Matchmaking holds no appeal for me. So you're content to do like 1 or maybe 2 matches a day? Because thats pretty much what PC is. It is not going to keep anyone "busy", I promise you that. You don't even get to fight without a 24 hour prior notice. If you thought corp vs corp was inconvenient now, you have no idea how boring PC will be.
Rigor Mordis Imperial Populicide Legion 15	Posted - 2013.04.23 03:28:00 - [39] - Quote Ahhhh, some people that actually understand that the negative feedback is what will make the whole thing successful. Not the praise of fanboys who are going to play regardless because of their loyalty and interests in EVE. Not the praise of fanboys who are gutless and find it entertaining to farm cheap kills. Not the praise of fanboys who can't hack it in the big leagues so they play DUST and claim that their KDR is relevant and legitimate. I would like to see some form of co-op missions or maybe a co-op survival mode. I think these could serve as ways of keeping small corps and unaffiliated mercs more interested and it would help them build chemistry and form strategies. SP awards would be minimal and ISK awards would be about half of what they currently are in pub matches. I realize that the system is changing so its hard to elaborate on my original ideas that were based on the current awards system. I would also like to see a 'zone based' game mode. Where there is a base or zone that scores points or MCC hits based on which team has the most mercs inside of the 'warzone' Kills inside of or from inside of the zone score more WP than kills outside or from outside of the zone. Deaths inside of the zone would even net 10 WP. Mercs inside of vehicles would not count toward 'zone occupancy' and their score bonuses would only apply to vehicle destruction kills. I think a mode like this would really make DUs and turret placements paramount in a teams success. I think it would also have to operate from 2 ground based spawn points for each team. This to eliminate the possibility of AFKing. A moving MCC would be cool but, how fast is it supposed to fly? Where all does it travel? I think they should move the MCCs deeper into the redzone in skirmish. Then widen the spawns' redline funnel. Its ridiculous to have the ability to call in all these vehicles but they are easily destroyed before deployment if your team is redlined. There needs to be avenues of escape from the spawnpoints in skirmish. Then people will be forced to DEFEND THE OBJECTIVES, rather than hooker tactics like redline camping and sniping.
Mac Dac Wraith Shadow Guards 43	Posted - 2013.04.23 03:36:00 - [40] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: KryptixX wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Lore. Game modes that doesn't make sense in war are not currently in. CTF, Free for all, and other game modes maybe even racing one day. There may be a CTF like game in the future that is war involved (capture the launch codes) first team to 3/5 launch codes one shots the mcc. So whats the deal with Skirmish 1.0? and no only read the title... gambled on the chances the subject material was going to be the same as the last 20 threads about this and sure enough after a second read it is. Hopefully coming back once the defender vs attacker imbalances are worked out and technology allows (apparently it was scrapped due to issues) The basic 'front line' mechanic might also return separately for different game modes. I am not saying I disagree with not having new game modes, I am just saying there is a reason why some game modes are not in yet because they do not fit the war theme yet. Either way other half of the answer I guess would be code, CCP Logic Loop has his hands full working on socket behavior and map generation and game modes. The other massive hurdle of designing game modes is designing maps to work with it. Capture the port works well on most maps. Where domination needs more forethought into flow and control. Would be awful if the defenders where forced back but they walled up on the edge of the transition zone red zoning everyone dead. Either way the official answer is probably going to cite more complicated than its seems. sorry but even skirmish 1.0 was very basic look at the vids skirmsh 1.0 might have been basic but it was still one of the best and open game modes we ever had so far. surely you have to agree. even the two maps we had seemed more fun then the maps were on now and there the same.

Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming EoN. 2832	Posted - 2013.04.23 04:51:00 - [41] - Quote Mac Dac wrote: Mavado V Noriega wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: KryptixX wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Lore. Game modes that doesn't make sense in war are not currently in. CTF, Free for all, and other game modes maybe even racing one day. There may be a CTF like game in the future that is war involved (capture the launch codes) first team to 3/5 launch codes one shots the mcc. So whats the deal with Skirmish 1.0? and no only read the title... gambled on the chances the subject material was going to be the same as the last 20 threads about this and sure enough after a second read it is. Hopefully coming back once the defender vs attacker imbalances are worked out and technology allows (apparently it was scrapped due to issues) The basic 'front line' mechanic might also return separately for different game modes. I am not saying I disagree with not having new game modes, I am just saying there is a reason why some game modes are not in yet because they do not fit the war theme yet. Either way other half of the answer I guess would be code, CCP Logic Loop has his hands full working on socket behavior and map generation and game modes. The other massive hurdle of designing game modes is designing maps to work with it. Capture the port works well on most maps. Where domination needs more forethought into flow and control. Would be awful if the defenders where forced back but they walled up on the edge of the transition zone red zoning everyone dead. Either way the official answer is probably going to cite more complicated than its seems. sorry but even skirmish 1.0 was very basic look at the vids skirmsh 1.0 might have been basic but it was still one of the best and open game modes we ever had so far. surely you have to agree. even the two maps we had seemed more fun then the maps were on now and there the same. not saying it wasnt better than what we have im saying it would get stale as its very basic take a look at the 2 vids i linked in the OP those show off a series of objectives and side objectives to complete CCP wants to change EVE OBs from being WP based, kool....take a hint from MAG have it timer & cooldown based BUT only able to drop if the ground forces can disable the Skyfire cannon and like MAG have that installation be able to be repaired that way it adds another side obj to the match......players now have to take out the Skyfire for their EVE support to drop OBs which could be used as a game changer rather than just "oh we're doin well.......heres an OB"
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 162	Posted - 2013.04.23 05:15:00 - [42] - Quote I hope that they already have a lot of new content they just keep it in reserve for the actual release, so that release actually feels like an introduction to an awesome game instead of something that has been explored already and beat up. On the other hand I don't understand why this beta has been taking forever. There just has not been that much improvement or balancing build to buid.
Rigor Mordis Imperial Populicide Legion 15	Posted - 2013.04.23 05:16:00 - [43] - Quote This 'skyfire' idea sounds pretty cool. Just as long as the EVE ships can't bombard us defenseless dusties whenever they want to. I think if there were a couple of side objectives in skirmish it would definitely make it more fun. Then I go back to how a team that's backed up need to be able to fight or escape from their spawns. It would be cool if their were an objective to disable/enable a planetary shield WITH another side objective that blasts ships out of space. Realistically, are the only planetary defenses against spaceships supposed to be other spaceships?
Rigor Mordis Imperial Populicide Legion 15	Posted - 2013.04.23 05:17:00 - [44] - Quote Ludvig Enraga wrote: I hope that they already have a lot of new content they just keep it in reserve for the actual release, so that release actually feels like an introduction to an awesome game instead of something that has been explored already and beat up. On the other hand I don't understand why this beta has been taking forever. There just has not been that much improvement or balancing build to buid. The beta is taking 4ever because there is so much work to be done.
Karras Hearn Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 15	Posted - 2013.04.23 05:25:00 - [45] - Quote This is why the game shouldn't have entered open beta yet. And why we can't have nice things. Half of you would still be bitching if they gave us everything you are asking for.
Rigor Mordis Imperial Populicide Legion 15	Posted - 2013.04.23 05:51:00 - [46] - Quote Karras Hearn wrote: This is why the game shouldn't have entered open beta yet. And why we can't have nice things. Half of you would still be bitching if they gave us everything you are asking for. That would have just given the people the people with their ear to the ground an even bigger head start over the noobs that will hopefully play if it ever winds up being worth while. Also, then it would really be catered to the big corps, spawn campers, mountain glitchers, and dungeons and dragons crowds by the time anybody that was impartial got to experience it. I'm eager to see what the new build holds like everybody else. The ones bitching are the ones whose ideas and opinions will take it in a better direction. If they just continue to listen to the CHICKEN-HEADS, then the game will just continue to be doo doo.
Rupture Reaperson Deadly Blue Dots RISE of LEGION 92	Posted - 2013.04.23 07:24:00 - [47] - Quote Kiro Justice wrote: Tolen Rosas wrote: u fanboys kidding? game cant continue with modes we would expect in quake 1.0. gamemodes have to have variety. domination crap they mentioned will hold my attention for 2 weeks after may 6. three modes in a year? no way man. Then quit. Im sorry mate but I DESPISE people like this "If you are not ok with this game while snorting ******* out of CCPs ass and screaming: Welcome to New Eden. Then GTFO" Are you familiar with the saying, "careful what you wish for, it might become true"?
Chilled Pill Pro Hic Immortalis RISE of LEGION 27	Posted - 2013.04.23 08:32:00 - [48] - Quote Mavado is on point. Dust in it's current incarnation is getting tired. Not to mention the fact that it stills falls short on delivering solid FPS core mechanics like smooth frame rates, consistent hit detection, and stable lag to name only a few. This infusion of new content and other improvements on May 6 comes as a much needed refreshment especially to those of us who have been testing since the early beta. However, if the improvements are marginal, then I really don't see a whole lot of reason to stick around. I like Dust 514 and the concept that it's trying to make real. But it might be just that, that I found enticing -- the concept. It may be my eagerness to see it come to fruition that has kept me logging on as often as I do. I wonder how far we are from the realization of the full vision of what CCP imagined Dust 514 to be.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 2579	Posted - 2013.04.23 09:26:00 - [49] - Quote Balance and core gameplay mechanics - which we all know need work - are much easier to get right in the less complex modes. Wait until they get these things right, THEN expect new modes. Also, +1 to OP for a well-thought-out post, some good suggestions and the fact that the step we're still waiting on has taken far too long already and we should be past it.
Hazed2085 Bragian Order Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2013.04.23 09:30:00 - [50] - Quote yer getting quite bored of team death match..skirmish is full of red line snipers its horrid

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 272	Posted - 2013.04.23 09:42:00 - [51] - Quote Maybe because the community is stupid? Everything from dropsuits to vehicles has got nerfed because ppl cannot deal with them so it has to be made easier to take them out So the same with gamemodes so they dont get confused Look at MAG and at how many would blindly run at the BO tower for 30min straight and not even go for the bunkerline
Jayquan18 The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 48	Posted - 2013.04.23 11:09:00 - [52] - Quote They could have at least gave us 48 players in the beta.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 3530	Posted - 2013.04.23 11:15:00 - [53] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Maybe because the community is stupid? Everything from dropsuits to vehicles has got nerfed because ppl cannot deal with them so it has to be made easier to take them out So the same with gamemodes so they dont get confused Look at MAG and at how many would blindly run at the BO tower for 30min straight and not even go for the bunkerline The stupidity problem could have easily been overcomed if the burnoff towers were behind the bunkers instead of in front of them, or if the auto-FRAGO wasn't set on the towers, but the bunkers instead.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 272	Posted - 2013.04.23 11:18:00 - [54] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Maybe because the community is stupid? Everything from dropsuits to vehicles has got nerfed because ppl cannot deal with them so it has to be made easier to take them out So the same with gamemodes so they dont get confused Look at MAG and at how many would blindly run at the BO tower for 30min straight and not even go for the bunkerline The stupidity problem could have easily been overcomed if the burnoff towers were behind the bunkers instead of in front of them, or if the auto-FRAGO wasn't set on the towers, but the bunkers instead. Remove the 1st set of BO towers and once again it becomes easier Also the FRAGO being changed to be off the tower means that idiot SL wouldnt frago anything so they would prob end up sniping anyways, id rarther have them go for the BO tower while me and my squad flank around
Kushmir Nadian Valor Coalition RISE of LEGION 162	Posted - 2013.04.23 12:02:00 - [55] - Quote I'm a big supporter of CCP but I didnt come here to play variations on team death match, sorry. If we get that on May 6th my playtime will drop considerably and not out of anger/hate but of sheer boredom and monotony. MAG had its flaws but one thing it got right was game modes that were objective based and unique. The ONLY reason I started playing shooters online was because of the game mode variety.
GoD-NoVa Imperfects Negative-Feedback 250	Posted - 2013.04.23 12:35:00 - [56] - Quote CCP stated they "want" to add more complex game modes but for some reason they can't right now. They also stated that if we create a huge fuss over this then they might consider creating a better game mode with different stages of objective. So try to keep this thread running people!!!!
Cyn Bruin Imperfects Negative-Feedback 828	Posted - 2013.04.23 12:45:00 - [57] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: Why dont we have multi-tiered "complex" modes like MAG Dominaton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5p8_35AMeE In DOM u had to take out the bunker line, destroy the AAA so u could call in ur strikes, secure the burnoff towers then cooling towers then overload the letters Why dont we have a scaled down version of something like this yet? Why is Skirmish still a poor ****** mans TITAN mode from BF2142? If ur gonna copy a game at least do it justice and copy the game properly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x9m58Vol1c Come on CCP lets not take 10 years to get this game rolling I love DUST but i gotta be real PC while prob gonna be fun is still the same cbs on skirmish Why has it taken so long to get NEW modes (not variations) done? - PvE - NEW actual PvP game modes - Player trading - Player market These should be high on the priority list PS: Ppl love to customise ** why is it cosmetics and weapon customisations not a priority......player retention is key. Sure looks like one of the many posts I've made in the past. Hope this one does some good, read up CCP. Oh and... where da patch notes at?
Rigor Mordis Imperial Populicide Legion 17	Posted - 2013.04.23 13:33:00 - [58] - Quote I think a MAG domination style mode would be great but they'd definitely have to expand the current maps for something like that. One thing that keeps me optimistic is that the 4 maps that currently exist are huge if you push the redlines around. A FFA mode would be awesome. 32 mercs, every merc for themselves. Would be Interesting to see how mercs drop they beef, gang up on a tank, tank blows up, mercs go back at each others throats. Bad part about FFA would be that dropships would be irrelevant seeing as how they don't have a pilot controlled weapon. AT least the CHEAP ones I have used don't. lol Would be cool if dropships could drop charges. Would have to have a set amount or a significant cooldown period but that would change the entire dynamic of a fight. A cross between CoDs headquarters and hotpoint would be cool. All vehicle fights would be cool but again the dropship would be irrelevant and LAVs wouldn't be worth mush if their weren't somewhere to get to fast. But then, what if there were TANKS ONLY COMBAT. Then there were LAV and Dropship RACE MODES! Sort of like GTA race on GTA IV. Except would have to pair up for LAV RACE and TRIPLE UP for Dropship race. Its simple, have to navigate vehicle to/through certain checkpoints for X amount of laps/distance, all while your gunner(s) try to take out your foes. All part of the New Eden War Games.
bolsh lee Ahrendee Mercenaries 47	Posted - 2013.04.23 14:20:00 - [59] - Quote I really dont mind skirmish (would rather play 1.0) but im pretty disappointed that CCP has steered away from "no map will look the same" where are the player owned installations/structures... ? Even with skirmish how it stands if the maps were always changing it would make the gameplay more challenging. ****, even when PC comes (correct me if im wrong) each map design is going to be based of current SI.. Would be nice if there was 4 or 5 different variations of each SI to spice skirmish up a bit.. Although seeing how things have beeen done so far im sure every PC map will have an Anus Peak theme to it.. I would love to see a real sandbox shooter where each map regardless of game type is different and the winning team has to rely on team work and on the fly strats.. Not who gets on the rails first or who drops the forge gunner/laser on the highest point, but how we get on the rails and where would be a strategic point for lasers/snipers.. I strongly belive its the maps making the gameplay stale not the game modes..
ReGnUM Public Relations Imperfects Public Relations 166	Posted - 2013.04.23 14:30:00 - [60] - Quote I just want a FFA Gamemode -I am tired of relying on others.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page