good lord, please go find a hobby. Throwing numbers around like this is probably just as boring for you as it is for anyone reading the thread. This is a pointless exercise.

I don't play COD very often anymore for a reason (everyone is the same with no real benefit to leveling up), that said this looks like a re balance that would require a skill reset of some sort or even just an asset reset, which would be just as bad/good. Can you clarify what you mean without throwing a spreadsheet at me? I am whole-heartedly opposed to any new resets as I have seen so many I just want to work on skilling into the gear I've wanted for the last 2 years.

Sounds good but seems like an awful lot to change and balance while we already have so many pressing issues at hand.



Some people like numbers, thank you very much. If this thread bores you then move on.

GDI Cat! I'm in the middle of working on the exact same topic- just in a different way. We should compare notes when I'm done.

I can't get on IRC at work.

Indeed he did.

Good to see you finally put this up! If they're going to do the radical changes they say they are, emulating the Reykjavik team and discarding the Tier system is probably in order.

This proposal provides players with skill for Frames with the ability to actually be useful, rather than just get stomped on by Specialists.

Shameless self promotion and cross posting from gbghg's thread.


My thread is here, in case anyone cares about the skill tree.

Then why the wall of numbers? Would have been better spent explaining why tiericide in dust is needed. Also, I like numbers, just only when used appropriately in a way that makes some amount of sense, rather than distracting from the point.

Concerns - Current system allows people to pay a premium for performance. This is not inherently a bad thing, and its certainly how it happens in EVE. Where in the new system will this have a place?

In the current system the power or edge you have over opponents is primarily better equipment. Lots of skills are solely about unlocks, and the inherent skill bonuses are minor at best. In your proposed system, where the equipment itself has less tiers, would having skill ranks themselves for their inherent bonuses be the most important differentiating factor? They would need to be much more powerful than current skill bonuses.

Sorry my initial post was rude, but people should be skeptical of jesus-feature-overhaul-ideas of core gameplay design. We certainly need to examine it more critically than "it was good for eve so its good for dust." Tiers in EVE were bad because they combined differing roles with increasing costs and increasing general performance. Here, with the exception of some weapon/equipment variants only being available at ADV/PRO level, a higher tier usually conforms to the exact same role.

Not a fan of having 5 versions of the gallente medium frame, either. You're taking customization that should be left to the module fittings and transplanting it unnecessarily to the suit choice.

Another random comment, in the current system the light/medium/heavy suits are too similar to scout/assault/sentinel suits. Hopefully that will change when CCP gets the suit bonuses sorted out.

I'm pretty sure that those people in this thread complaining about your op just didn't take the time to read it. If they did they might see that what you are saying is one of the most well thought out solutions to the std/adv/proto system that is keeping a large portion of the playerbase from being competitive.

I really like the idea. I think that the diversity of adding in multiple variants of everything and keeping it all at an accessible level would make the game experience much less of a grind.

Few problems though. How would they overhaul the entire system and how would they keep everyone from piling onto a FOTM suit (ie: balance issues that will need constant tweaking).

All in all though this is a great idea and I support it.

Bark.

Why do all this????

You might be onto something...

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of this. CoD doesn't have matchmaking, but the noob tube closes the gap between vets and newbies.

Vets won't use it because it's beneath them because it angers the gungame gods

Make it an attachment only available on the militia AR and 1 shot per use. People can be welcome to use it, but it won't be the only viable tactic. Also, this is the second time I've derailed your topic lol. I should probably make my own instead of musing in yours.

Agreed. Tiercide is the new way forward.

All the arguments against this thread so far, to be honest, are superficial.

What changes, if this is implemented?
-No need for Academy, as it's there to shelter newbies from pubstomping temporarily.
-No need for matchmaking, which takes away from the 'sandbox' feel of New Eden
-No need for more bloody SP sinks every time new content comes out, because a few skills unlocks gear, and more skills can instead go to passive bonuses per level.
-Balances the game by closing the gap between those who have been here for ages and new players, whilst still allowing veterans to have the ability to 'specialise' into a role. You might say specialisation right now is good. Don't make me laugh. Right now you specialise into something that kills better by getting better gear. That's not specialisation. That's linear progression, and it sucks.

So, with these changes in place:

Academy can be removed, matchmaking isn't needed. Newbies can get straight into the real games without worrying about being instantly outclassed. Prototype gear is gone, pubstomping capacity is halved.

Less calls for respecs because now we have lots of gear unlocked with a few skills, new content can simply be thrown in with these skills, which therefore will lead to a growing importance of ISK.

ISK is a mercenary's lifeblood. People SHOULDN'T be able to simply farm a nest egg, unless they play very conservatively. But that's another discussion entirely. The point here is that less respec threads = good. There are too many of those bloody things.

Furthermore, NOW CCP can focus on the 'pressing issues' like balance and new content and building up gameplay mechanics because the core progression system ISN'T rotten to the core! They can balance items without fear that those who used them will cry because they don't have to waste too much SP going into another weapon. They can add new content without people crying that it's another SP sink for something that couldn't possibly be worth it, because it won't be an SP sink in the first place.

The Tiercide revolution is upon us, and there's no sitting on the fence.

Weapons can be divided in as many ways as CCP feels, that's the beauty of it.

We'll have basic AR, with variations of that.
Then T2 ARs, which are basically specialisations of variants.
Then variants of the T2 specialisations too.



Agreed, but I doubt good in-game tutorials will come any time soon. Right now it's just a bunch of pop-up help screens that no FPS player has the patience to read.

It's a community effort right now. Corps like DUST Uni as well as some good YouTube vids on fitting, tactics, etc. should suffice for now. A nice guide here too: http://wiki.dust514.info/index.php?title=The_Newberry%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

Scattered Low accuracy high damage
Stabilized High accuracy and range standard damage higher PG/CPU use
Compressed Higher overheat I don't know the advantage though.

What they need to do is bring back the old system where it was

Type I

Type II

A Series

B Series

vk.0

vk.1

Thats why there was a vk.0 for armor tankers...

Maybe for people that liked shields. But You can throw some armor plates & damage mods and go 20+/0 back then. Anyone could say that the vk.1 was better..... By there prefrence of shields. Some people like armor.

It had more eHP total.

i agree with this idea. not the purposed statistics however.

trying to keep it short, i dont want to get into a rant

I dont think there should be any drawbacks to using a specific suit. such as the -damage or -absolute range. the drawbacks will not necessarily drawbacks, but will be differences. just like in EVE, no ship really has a drawback... just a weakness to its counter or when being used outside its intended role, however since there are no actual drawbacks, one can still make a very outside the box fitting and surprise everyone by using it very effectively outside its intended roles.... in my opinion, a "direct drawback" will only hinder creativity

understandable. but i think that there could be other things that could be affected, less hp, slower, something... what if someone wanted to use that suit for something other than hybrid?

i could come up with many reasons why i am just highly opposed to a "debuff/direct drawback" other than that... i think some numbers could use tweaking...

but that isnt the point. im super tired. the point of this post is the general idea and i completely agree with like 90% of it. just a few number tweaks. no real point in discussing numbers too much not even knowing if CCP will even consider this

Bark of truth.

Tiericide is always a good thing.

*Licks Cat*

Okay... nice 10k for a T1 Medium and 60k for T2?

I reckon pricing should be based on how much we earn per contract. Find the average number of deaths (y), find the average ISK reward per contract (x), then make a fully fitted T1 suit worth x divided by y.

So dying more than average loses you ISK. Dying more than average in T2 suits will mean you lose ISK.

Then battles like PC and contracts that can be given for PvE missions (SoonGäó) and other things that EVE could contract mercenaries to do will become more important if their rewards are greater than that of public matches.

Make it more painful to our wallets to die, because right now it doesn't feel as if dying has enough of an impact.

So something maybe equivalent to, T1 you can lose up to 15-20 fully kitted out suits and still make a profit (not many people die 20 times in a match, at least the ones that aren't pubstomps).

For T2 maybe be able to lose 5-10 fully kitted suits (also not all suits cost the same). Don't want to make them so expensive you feel like you can't play with them without losing money, but you should play conservatively, or with a good support team. Right now, proto costs are something like, 1-2 fully kitted clone losses are a net loss. These numbers are for for normal pub matches, earning anywhere from 200K ISK and below to 300K ISK and above. Obviously, PC matches are different with MUCH greater rewards.

Side note, it'd be nice to be able to buy more/other things as you accumulate money, like installations to drop onto maps.

This is the only one of your ideas from the nexus that I like (no offense, just seems like some weird ideas, and would be really hard to balance for). However, I really like this one. Wait, let me say that again:


EDIT: After reading the entire thing, I noticed that you said that Logi should get a bonus towars scanners. Scanners are EWAR, and logi things don't do EWAR. Scouts (Gallente Scouts in particular) Should.

Message from Godin: you ass, you haven't rewrote anything -_-

Message from Godin: After rereading this, I would change the damage given on the Assault to a 25-50% faster reload imo.

Then why the wall of numbers? Would have been better spent explaining why tiericide in dust is needed. Also, I like numbers, just only when used appropriately in a way that makes some amount of sense, rather than distracting from the point.

Concerns - Current system allows people to pay a premium for performance. This is not inherently a bad thing, and its certainly how it happens in EVE. Where in the new system will this have a place?

In the current system the power or edge you have over opponents is primarily better equipment. Lots of skills are solely about unlocks, and the inherent skill bonuses are minor at best. In your proposed system, where the equipment itself has less tiers, would having skill ranks themselves for their inherent bonuses be the most important differentiating factor? They would need to be much more powerful than current skill bonuses.

Sorry my initial post was rude, but people should be skeptical of jesus-feature-overhaul-ideas of core gameplay design. We certainly need to examine it more critically than "it was good for eve so its good for dust." Tiers in EVE were bad because they combined differing roles with increasing costs and increasing general performance. Here, with the exception of some weapon/equipment variants only being available at ADV/PRO level, a higher tier usually conforms to the exact same role.

Not a fan of having 5 versions of the gallente medium frame, either. You're taking customization that should be left to the module fittings and transplanting it unnecessarily to the suit choice.

Another random comment, in the current system the light/medium/heavy suits are too similar to scout/assault/sentinel suits. Hopefully that will change when CCP gets the suit bonuses sorted out.

I like this idea.

I don't want to loose the financial aspect of suit choice that we have at the moment though (even if it is a bit off, it was better in chromosome).

With tiericide the costs are also equalised. So there is no way to bring out your good stuff to crack a tough nut.

Can you think of a way to retain the cost decisions without resorting to vehicles or random loot?
Perhaps excessively expensive modules that provide an extra 5-10%? Or does this just defeat the purpose of tiericide....

This idea has some merit. While I may not agree with some of your numbers I think the general idea that every suit should have a distinct purpose rather than just better stats is good. Looking at your spreadsheet still gives me a migraine though so I'm going to go take an asprin and a cup of joe and try to think happy thoughts about red berries fresh out of academy being useful to pad my kdr, and think about all the blueberries acting as meat shields for both my bullets and the enemy ones as well.

Message from Godin: Godin likes