| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
 |
| Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
||||||
 |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
2011-08-03, 05:31 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #1 | ||||||
|
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
More importantly I'm concerned with how the game scales. Think release + 1 year and they have a content expansion. Many players have converged and have most of the same skillsets providing the same passive power bonuses. There is no longer differentiation between players. What will they do? Well they already started down the path of power over time so they'll very likely continue down that path and expand and add more power bonuses. Just like EVE started with "not that big of a difference" it becomes a big difference and discourages new players. The immediate feedback I got from my outfit mates on the skill system was the "never catch up" problem EVE has with new players. It is not a good system. Player specialization and customization decreases over time as everyone obtains the same set of bonuses, and it only widens the gap between new players and veterans. 2-3 years down the line you have new players who would need to invest an enormous amount of real-world time to just get to where the vets are, and by the time they do the game will have new certs and things exposed. It never stops, and the longer it goes on the worse it gets for new players. Now is the time to change that course and pick a system that scales with additional content without upsetting power balance. I propose one based on other games with similar systems (including PS1 and EVE - use their ship customization model instead of their skill gain model). The game can still have unlocks over time just like games like BFBC2 have and very early on expose options to new players that give them some tradeoffs. they might not be "the best" possible tradeoff option for what they want to do, but its competitive and its something and they can work towards the bonuses important to them and have them in short order.
There's also different types of unlocks. Vehicle and weapon upgrades cost resources and are on a different system, but bonuses that apply to your character's abilities and skills effectively work like implants. So you work up the cert tree and for simplicity lets say it only has 10 unlocks. You might have to make an implant-like decision and choose 3 of those 10 to run at any given time. If you want to change your style, go to a special terminal and change them. It can be a lot more complex than that with mutliple categories and different types of agumentations. As I described in an earlier post on this thread I think it could even end up looking like the sort of rich customization you have with an EVE Ship. You have some constraints, but you have complete freedom to tailor the character within those constraints with whatever augmentations you have unlocked. The expectation is that those augmentations are different but ultimately lead to about the same "power", just with different scopes and maginitudes and some may have tradeoffs built into them just like EVE ship modules do. The key observation is that instead of having small meaningless augmentations that everyone and anyone can have at all times you pick and choose much more meaningful augmentations that cater to your preferred playstyle. You can change them whenever you want, but there is some small inconvenience in doing so (going to a special terminal). The inconvienience exists only to make the specialization a quasi-stable decision just like implants are a quasi-stable decision.
I'm suggesting another layer where you choose the power bonuses. Those power bonuses are significant and meaningful and because of the limited number and the decisions you must make, that will differentiate you from other players who will make different decisions. Example, suppose you like assault rifles and choose to have an assault rifle damage bonus as one of your power augments. Whether you are a tank driver or a light assault infantry you get that bonus. If you occasional hop into a max suit or infiltrator then it won't be that useful to you, but if you do that with any regularity then you might have some differnet bonuses for those roles. Its no different than if you were swapping implants. Some implants are more or less useful in certain roles. "Surge" for example is not a very useful implant for a MAX, but if you don't spend a lot of time in a max or while you are flying aircraft, but you may feel it is a worthwhile implant for the times you don't. Same deal. Basically customization would have multiple levels. Tier 1: Cert tree - unlocks OPTIONS Class options, vehicle & equipment options, implant options, upgrade options, augment options Tier 2: Implants - set of activatable abilities Limited number, player chooses which activatable abilities they want. Darklight, audio amp, surge, etc Tier 3: Augments - passive player bonuses (this is what I am proposing) Limite dnumbe,r player chooses which augments they want. wide range of possibilities here to customize core character aspects. Rate of fire, movement speed, vehicle handling, etc. These can be significant bonuses. Tier 4: Class - controls the set of equipment and vehicles to which a player has access Tier 5: Equipment/vehicle upgrades - augments player equipment Consumes resources to augment vehicles and equipment. Add gun sights, expanded magazine, more tank armor, etc. As you move up the tiers you have increased levels of flexibility. Cert tree choices are the most permanent choices. Once you make them you can't go back and re-make them. Implants and Augments can be changed at certain places. Class can be changed very frequently, and equipment presumably moreso. The only thing the player gains over time is the cert tree, which is options. There is no direct power, and all such power gains are player decisions - which implant to use, which class to play, which augments to run, and which equipment/vehicle upgrades to buy. The main difference between what I have above and what we know of the game thus far is Tiers 1 and 3. Tier 3 doesn't exist to my knowledge at all and instead those agumentt bonuses are tied to cert tree decisions and are also very small, so small in fact that they aren't overly significant. I would like them to be not tied direclty to the cert tree and increased in magnitude, however to go along with that they would be limited in number so things stay competitive and to make those augment decisions meaningful, like implant decisions. Edit: Rbstr, I'm intentionally not responding to your EVE comments because it's semantics at this point and the EVE system is way off topic for this. The point is that there is a perception issue and a set of time before a new player is competitive. The former is bad for the game, the latter terrible for the game.
__________________
Last edited by Malorn; 2011-08-03 at 05:34 PM. |
||||||
|
|
|
2011-08-03, 06:08 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #2 | |||
|
Brigadier General
|
I'm giving the devs the benefit of doubt that they actually want to achieve their stated goals, and they arn't just blowing sunshine up my ass. Frankly, I think your argument of "I totally know how this is going to play out" is premature. The conclusions you are making are leaps in logic based on the assumption that the devs are either lying or incompetent. Alot of what you've been saying has been based on your experience with EVE, and I've never played the game, so I concede that my knowledge of its mechanics are extremely limited. However, I'm sure that the combat between EVE and PS2 are completely different, so making an apples to apples comparison of balance is going to be inherantly flawed and therefore not worth as much stock as you seem to be putting into it. Basically, lets see what it will look like for PS2 before we start advocating for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Then, to extrapolate that out several years and say, "well it might be good for year 1, but by year 5 the game will be forever broken" you have to ignore the fact that the game will be supported (much better than PS1 it seems) and problems can be addressed and fixed. I'm not going to redesign the automobile because I know the radiator will leak someday. I'll fix the radiator if and when it becomes a problem. Look, you are obviously a very intelligent guy, and make well thought out points. I just think it's early to be concerned about issues 5 years from now that the devs are already aware of.
__________________
"Before you say anything, prepare to stfu." -Kenny F-ing Powers 
|
|||
|
|
|
|
2011-08-03, 06:52 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #3 | ||||
|
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
There are several things to consider. 1) The information we have is incomplete. So the picture of what they see in the game design and the picture we see from their information they have provided will not line up in many places. This can lead to false impressions, so yeah I've got a bit of grain of salt. However, that's just a limitation we have to deal with and it shouldn't stop the analysis and giving of feedback. 2) I'm sure they are doing what they believe to be right to make their game successful. 3) Developers are still human. They get things wrong. Sometimes group think, inaccurate information, or a variety of other psychological phenomena is involved. Sometimes they didn't look at things from all the angles. Most common problems occur because things just dont' work out the way you expect them to. Every game has notable screwups and poor designs. How many might have been averted if they had the right questions asked and the right ideas presented early in development? The PS2 devs seem to understand this quite well, which is why they have the 3-year plan. They're putting forth what they want to do so they have plenty of time to get our feedback on that so they can avoid problems like BFRs or taking the game in the wrong direction. I hear what they say. I read what they type. I see the design they lay out for us. I don't think they're lying to us. I don't think they're being deceptive. I trust that they are competent individuals. However, I see gaps, inconsistencies, potential problems, and pitfalls in a small portion of what they have presented. Those same developers ASKED US for feedback. Higby reads these forums to see what people think. I'm giving them that feedback because...maybe they overlooked something. Maybe something won't pan out the way they expect it to. Maybe its not quite right. That's why we're here providing feedback, and that's why they're reading these forums. I work on world-class software for a living - I know full well that sometimes developers get it wrong. And many times had the right question been asked or the right scenario discussed those things could have been averted. I also know that sometimes its too late in a product cycle to fix a problem so the earlier you find it the better. Sometimes you have to deal with a flaw and once you ship that flaw you have to deal with it for a very long time. I am giving my feedback early and often on this so they have plenty of time to address it and PS2 is the best game it can be.
And please don't get me wrong. I absolutely love the direction the game is going and I'm shocked, surprised, and very happy with most of what I've seen. I think they got their heads on straight for most everything. However, if I see something that seems flimsy and not as sound will speak up about it. I want the game to be successful as much as they do. I've been waiting the better part of a decade for planetside-done-right, and I don't want to miss opportunities to help make it the best it can be and be successful for the next 10 years. And that is precisely what I'm doing. I love this game, that's why I'm so passionate about having a lively debate about what we know of the game systems. Its healthy for the game. It keeps us entertained. And it gives the developers another angle on their ideas.
__________________
|
||||
|
|
|
|
2011-08-04, 09:58 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #4 | ||||||
|
Colonel
|
Not seeing a misunderstanding. Me: If I cert damage for an infantry weapon, I want to be able to put that on the weapon when I pull that weapon. You: That damage bonus for an infantry weapon would be an implant like thing you must make a side trip for to change out
Last edited by CutterJohn; 2011-08-04 at 10:05 AM. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
2011-08-04, 10:06 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #5 | ||||
|
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
This is no different from how BFBC2 does gadget slots. You can choose to have damage, or you can choose to have armor. But you cannot have both. You can choose to have an a run sped bonus, or you can choose to carry more grenades. But you cannot have both. Thus, tradeoff and meaningful specialization. Its meaningful because it is significant and you the player had to make a choice as to which strengths you want your character have based on your playstyle. Its also meaningful because not every player will have the same benefits you do. If you choose a bunch of infantry bonuses, you will be more suited for infantry than players who chose vehicle oriented bonuses or different types. If you got the bonus all the time, it means 1) the bonus will be small and insignificant 2) many other people will have the bonus, making it meaningless except against nubs that haven't trained it yet. Do you not want your bonuses on your character to actually convey an advantage in a field of your choosing?
__________________
Last edited by Malorn; 2011-08-04 at 10:11 AM. |
||||
|
|
|
|
2011-08-04, 10:18 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #6 | ||||
|
Colonel
|
3)The bonus will be significant, but because there are 5 significant upgrades occupying the same slot on the weapon, you have to pick and choose, and since everyone values different things, different upgrades will be used. i.e. Some would want the high accuracy barrel with reduced cof bloom, some would want the high damage barrel with secondary acceleration coils for more damage, and some would want the underbarrel grenade launcher attachment. Last edited by CutterJohn; 2011-08-04 at 10:19 AM. |
||||
|
|
|
|
2011-08-04, 10:53 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #7 | ||||
|
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
To provide the eve example, I'm talking about the passive upgrades one gets via skills (or certs), not the modules and rigs that can be applied to augment a specific ship. The former is always-on applied to your character. The latter is a one-time purchase that is applied to the current equipment being used. So I'm talking about how to handle passive power upgrades that might be unlocked via the cert tree. They have described their system like EVE, only with far lower power progression amounts (~20% combined). EDIT: Looking back on your posts it seems as though you're just hung up on the proposition of changing these bonuses at a terminal, not with the core idea of limiting active bonuses itself. The frequency at which the bonuses get changed is not the important part of the idea being proposed. The important part is the part in the OP that I bolded, increased font size, and colored yellow. That's the core idea, everything else is a more minor design detail that is certainly subject to being changed. Love to discuss that more if that's what your objection is with.
__________________
Last edited by Malorn; 2011-08-04 at 11:27 AM. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
