Your approach to weapon customization/sidegrades

[FIREk]

So now we know that we will be able to modify our weapons somewhat - give our Cyclers more punch at the cost of other stuff, like accuracy, range, rate of fire, recoil etc.

Since these weapons appear to be implemented as drops and items in the cash shop, it's doubtful that we will be able to create our own variants by moving some sliders around - why buy something off the cash shop if you can just make the same gun with a bunch of sliders?

Therefore I see two possible implementations:
1) A limited range of variants (up to 6, for instance), which differ from the default variant significantly,
2) Dozens of variants with different permutations of stat modifications - kind of like in Borderlands, for instance.

Which would you prefer?

Myself, I would definitely prefer number 1, if only for te fact that this option is easier to balance, and that these few variants could come with noticeable visual differences (like a bigger ammo mag, longer barrel, tactical front grip, etc.).

[Talek Krell]

I think the Borderlands method would be a lot more difficult to keep under control, so I'd prefer option 1 as well. That said, I think they know/have told us little enough that it may be different from both of these possibilities.

[Raymac]

"7 words.... Wep Pin Cuss Tim My Zay Shun" -THE art dude.

I kinda take that to mean many options.

[Legion]

I would expect the standard types of scopes, extended magazines, and accuracy or damage upgrades. I wouldn't expect grenade launchers or shotgun additions.

[Graywolves]

"7 words.... Wep Pin Cuss Tim My Zay Shun" -THE art dude.

I kinda take that to mean many options.

Our boy T-Ray son!



From my understanding it'll be like "Longer Barrel - +4 Accuracy -4RoF" or something along those lines.

[Traak]

three magazines taped together?

[Brusi]

Hopefully it won't just end up with people always choosing the ++damage mod and ignoring all the others.

[Sirisian]

Not a fan of the sidegrade system at all. I'd rather just have a system where players unlock upgrades using resources to give them different features on the rifle separate from menial statistics changes. Things like buying a rifle and then after 5 kills you unlock a grenade launcher attachment. (If it isn't obvious I don't care much for the whole 20% garbage).

[Bags]

Please we don't need more spam in PS.

[Sirisian]

Please we don't need more spam in PS.
That's kind of jumping to conclusions for PS2. All we know really regarding spam is that they're planning to have more types of grenades. Also it was just an example.

Depending on the weaponry there are tons of extra upgrades a person could have that aren't just number changing. Like having a decimator with an upgrade that allows you to guide it a little bit after firing a la Crysis. I could list hundreds of them, but they have 2 qualified game designers already.

[Legion]

Hopefully it won't just end up with people always choosing the ++damage mod and ignoring all the others.

Yeah, that happens all the time in BFBC2, I guess it will depend on how many hits it takes to kill with and without the extra damage.

[Talek Krell]

Yeah, that happens all the time in BFBC2, I guess it will depend on how many hits it takes to kill with and without the extra damage.

Along with the severity of the penalties probably. There's no particular downside to the damage bonus in BC2, so hopefully changing that will help.

[FIREk]

Hopefully it won't just end up with people always choosing the ++damage mod and ignoring all the others.

Well, weapon customization is supposed to be about sidegrades, so there should always be some drawbacks. Like a +20% damage Cycler with -15% rate of fire and 30% more recoil, for instance (stats off the top of my head, of course).

This way, there are no upgrades that give you a flat statistical advantage (like in old APB, where everyone would get the power, RoF and accuracy upgrades, invalidating the others). You get more powerful bullets, but you fire less per second and it's more difficult to keep all of them on target, so you might as well just have a Gauss. ;).

[Graywolves]

I remember Higby saying that if you could get 20% damage upgraded it wouldn't decrease shots to kill much. But that they also don't plan on anyone being able to get to a 20% damage increase at all anyways.

[FIREk]

I remember Higby saying that if you could get 20% damage upgraded it wouldn't decrease shots to kill much. But that they also don't plan on anyone being able to get to a 20% damage increase at all anyways.

I knew I should have put in 15% or something. :P The 20% was just off the top of my head, it wasn't supposed to count towards the +20% power difference.

The way I understand weapon customization, it isn't supposed to give you a statistical advantage, and is only supposed to make the weapon do the same thing, only a bit differently, to fit your preferences. The 20% is most likely supposed to come from certs, not guns.

[LZachariah]

To be honest, all I really want is a difference that I can "feel." I don't know if 20% will be tangible or not, but I trust in the PS2 team to test everything and make sure it's noticeable. For instance, in BF:BC2 (a game that I really love), the bullet-damage upgrade (at least for the VSS, which is basically the only weapon I use) is very noticeable. Alternately (and unfortunately), the Sprint Increase is basically not noticeable at all, nor is the damage upgrade for the explosive damage yield (at least in regards to the C4). In those two cases, you just CAN't feel the difference, so what do we do? Hope that there's some magical, imperceptible change? Of course not, we go off and choose another upgrade that we can perceive.

I'm definitely for expanding the benefits AND drawbacks until we really know that we're holding a different weapon. I have no problem with sidegrades, in fact, I think they're the best possible idea, because once everything is balanced, once there is no "best choice," everyone is free to choose their favorite "flavor," and know that it is a very viable choice, depending on how they want to play.

[Hamma]

Hopefully it won't just end up with people always choosing the ++damage mod and ignoring all the others.

This worries me as well, but I think we should be ok here. I think I just have flashbacks to APB's horribly failed upgrade system.

[nomotog]

I'd like to see different tangible affects not just +/- to different stats. Things like switching your grenades from time to impact or adding a shield on the end of your rifle. Also unlocking different pieces of equipment across different classes. Like unlocking rockets for your light armor. Different things like that.

I wonder if everyone will hate this, but I think they could get away with some actual upgrades if they attached a resource cost to them. Something like using the rail gun sniper if your willing to spend 400 grass when you spawn.

[Talek Krell]

Do you mean have advanced weapons cost resources?

[FIREk]

Do you mean have advanced weapons cost resources?

Personally, I doubt that basic weapon customization will cost resources. Except for convenience stuff, like scopes - as far as I understand non-sniper weapons will have iron sights by default.

Technically, if you get a replacement secondary turret for your tank, for instance, you're supposed to spend resources. Same thing goes for other non-standard stuff like night-vision goggles.

These things are supposed to give an advantage, however. The very idea is that, if for instance the NC are under-populated on the server, they get bonus resources, which allows them to roll out more powerful gear more often, giving them an edge over the enemy that over-populates them.

Weapon customization, as far as I understand, shouldn't give an advantage, but allow you to customize your weapon to better suit your preferences. You may prefer hard-hitting long-range rifles, and would rather turn your Cycler into a kind of M14 battle rifle. Or you may prefer spray-and-pray and turn it onto a kind of M4 carbine, or something.
Stuff like this should be free in my opinion, since it doesn't give an advantage, unlike a superior AI mortar turret, an AA turret etc...

[nomotog]

Do you mean have advanced weapons cost resources?

Ya, or advance weapon parts that cost resources. The idea is that theses are upgrades with no downsides except that you have to spend resources to spawn them.

[Sirisian]

Ya, or advance weapon parts that cost resources. The idea is that theses are upgrades with no downsides except that you have to spend resources to spawn them.
Yeah I want that too. However, it sounds like some people are holding onto that 20% difference quote very strongly.

[NapalmEnima]

It sounds to me like each weapon will have several variants that might do better in different scenarios. One might be better at long range, another at CQC, while a third might be a slightly better overall general weapon that is more ammo efficient.

And I think we will see add-on grenade/rocklet launchers & shot guns and so forth. Heck, maybe even a bayonet.

Other add-ons will include various scopes. I suspect that optical scopes won't improve your accuracy much if at all, but you'll be in aim-down-sight mode when you use it so you'll be pretty accurate already. We've already heard mention of a night-vision scope. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that we get a thermal scope as well, one that can pick folks out of foliage fairly easily... maybe even see cloakers. Not so sure I like that last idea.


Anyway, it's quite possible that most add-ons won't affect the damage/RoF directly, and that is left to the variants. OTOH, I believe one of the devs (probably Higby) mentioned swapping out the barrel/receiver, which would certainly affect that kind of thing.

[Raymac]

Ya, or advance weapon parts that cost resources. The idea is that theses are upgrades with no downsides except that you have to spend resources to spawn them.

I see what you are saying, but considering that we know the game will be f2p, something like this sounds like the very definition of "selling power". And that is something the devs have been vocal about not wanting to do.

[Talek Krell]

I see what you are saying, but considering that we know the game will be f2p, something like this sounds like the very definition of "selling power". And that is something the devs have been vocal about not wanting to do.In game resources. Because yeah, charging my credit card for a Lasher is a no go.

Edit: Ah, or were you running on the assumption that they're likely to sell resources for cash?

[Raymac]

In game resources. Because yeah, charging my credit card for a Lasher is a no go.

Edit: Ah, or were you running on the assumption that they're likely to sell resources for cash?

Yeah, exactly what your edit says. There is likely to be some sort for correllation between in game resources and microtransactions, but that is a total assumption on my part. And we all know the old saying about assuming.

[MasterChief096]

It sickens me how I posted the idea for +/- weapon (and vehicle) customizations along time ago and got shut down by the very same people that are now advocating because SOE all of a sudden "decided" to introduce the sidegrade feature. Here, lets take a blast to the past shall we?

Post by someone who fought AGAINST my idea (who seems to now have no problem with it) of having draw backs to HUGE amounts of customization options:

No I understood exactly what you meant. It's the same argument others have made for balancing the upgrades. They want upgrades that do nothing in the long run. It's a tactic many people on these forums use to justify their reasoning. You might not even realize you're doing it. "Lets upgrades damage, but decrease accuracy" making it only good for close combat. I disagree with that strategy and I'm going to tell you why.

When someone upgrades something it should have a direct effect on the weapon with no weaknesses. I say this because if all weapons and vehicles in the game are like this then it specializes people immensely. Someone that upgrades the cannon on their tank to be say 50% better would have a very powerful tank. Someone that upgrades their armor by 50% would have a very strong tank. Upgrading flight maneuverability instead of weapons on a plane has the same effect. Someone might want to upgrade their Reaver rockets with awesome new rockets that are good against the ground units, but find themselves open to air attacks by more agile planes.

This was a response to the sidegrade idea I had given in the thread, although at the time I wasn't calling it a "sidegrade" system I was merely calling it "a system that allows for any type of customization you want at the cost of certain things to keep it balanced."

Here's how I further elaborated on it:

What people are not understanding is that you can have just as much specialization if not more specialization by having trade-offs instead of just raw power upgrades (no matter how small they might be).

I'll explain it again for the people who don't want to read all 12 pages of this thread.

If there are trade-offs, you could do things like:

1. Take your Guass Rifle and increase its damage by 20%. You could then decide what stats you want to minus 20% from. This could be -20% from one stat, or allocated amongst the stats you choose. For example you could take 10% from clip size, 10% from RoF. Or you could take 5% from clip size, 7% from RoF, and 8% from CoF. This would make your gun very unique to your character, as the different stat allocations you choose to put into it once you've unlocked the ability to do so would be extremely varied.

2. Same goes with vehicles. I'll use my Reaver example again. Lets say you want a Reaver with a primary purpose of swooping in and firing shit loads of missiles and then getting the hell out as fast as possible. To do this you would need speed, maneuverability, and a shit load of missiles. You could customize your Reaver to lose 25% damage in its rockets and 25% from its armor. You could then take that 50% and spread it out amongst speed, maneuverability, and possibly the amount of afterburner you have. You could increase your rocket-firing speed by 15%, your speed by 15%, your maneuverability by 15%, and the amount of afterburner you have by 5% (or however else you wish to configure it). Once again, your Reaver would be unique to you based on how you allocate your stats. It would be really awesome if there was an appearance change as well, such as your Reaver having smaller missiles and/or less armor.

I'm willing to make a compromise on things like attachments (such as scopes, fixed grenade launchers, flashlights etc). To me, those are like certs. Imagine if you could spend 1-2 cert points in PlanetSide to attach a grenade launcher to your Cycler for instance. Things like grenade launchers, scopes, flashlights, etc are the equivalent to versatility for a veteran, at least to me. So I don't mind if there are zero trade-offs for attaching a different scope/grenade launcher/flashlight to your gun, other than the fact that if you have a flashlight you won't be able to have a grenade launcher.

If you used a trade-off system you could do what one player in this thread mentioned earlier. He said he liked fast, hard hitting machine guns that have a crazy CoF bloom after the first 4-5 shots. Essentially you could add damage and RoF to your Cycler and sacrifice CoF bloom to get it.

IMO this system works better because you can create the weapons/vehicles YOU WANT and the changes are SIGNIFICANT, yet balanced. Instead of a 20% advantage at end-game that is so spread out you hardly notice it, you actually have weapons/vehicles that are vastly different from the weapons/vehicles of others. Your stat changes would actually have a large, noticeable difference on what you are using, but the trade-offs would make it so that its not super OP and can't be beaten.

Oh but a sense of character advancement is not there you say? How about actually gaining BR and unlocking the ability to customize your weapons in such extreme ways as character advancement? I'm sure new players would be like, "damn I wish I could have a super accurate MA rifle because that's my playstyle." With a trade-off system they could have that rifle, it would just wouldn't perform as well in extreme CQC. In an FPS character advancement relies less on the power of your character increasing and more on the options your character has (feel like we're beating a dead horse here), as it was in PlanetSide. Besides, a BR20 is going to have a 20% advantage over a BR1 based solely on the options he has anyways.

I still have yet to see someone argue the point that without power gains there would be zero sense of character advancement... To me that's just plain wrong. When I first started PlanetSide, every BR I felt like I was getting somewhere. I would just ITCH with anticipation when I knew that my next BR was going to give me enough cert points to get something that I had been wanting. Players in PlanetSide 2 would have the same anticipation, without power gains.

But alas, the system Higby described would be 'acceptable', as it doesn't effect the gameplay much, but I would much rather see a system as I have described above because it would:

1) not offer veterans a % power gain other than the 'natural' % power gain from being a higher BR/vet regardless.

2) Allow for customization that actually makes a difference in terms of how your weapon performs and what situations its good for.

3) Keep the anticipation for wanting to advance your character to achieve more customization options

Oh but wait it gets better, I came back to the thread like a day later and there were three more pages of discussion but no one seemed to mention my precursor "sidegrade" idea or denounce it at all, in which I further replied:

In this entire thread I have failed to see someone negate battle rank and cert points as a form of character progression.

No one has come out with a clean argument as to why progressing in BR and gaining cert points to unlock more choices is NOT considered progression. As far as I'm concerned it is. I stated a long time ago in this thread that during PlanetSide BR is what drove me. Power differentiation in terms of stats is not needed for motivation to advance in BR and unlock more options. But whatever. Not one person has addressed this.

So myself and a few others get completely drowned out in a wave of, "SOE knows what they are doing with customization, and how to balance it, QUIT CRYING!" Then mysteriously, one month later, SOE releases information that sidegrades are going to be in the game, both in-game unlockable and available from the micro-transaction shop. Voila! Everyone now seems to support this idea because, "SOE said it, so they know what they are doing obviously, QUIT CRYING!"

So many people on these forums are just bandwagon hoppers when it comes to anything SOE spouts that it upsets me. Quit acting like 1984 proletarians and learn how to come up with ideas and think about them for yourself. I'm not hating on SOE. The majority of ideas they have implemented into the game are amazing. They are truly designing a next-gen MMOFPS, as they already tried with PlanetSide, a game I have played and love for a decent percentage of my life. (one/third of my life to be exact lol). I love SOE's PlanetSide team and have much respect to them, but certain guys need to learn how to be more open-minded in discussions.

On-topic, I'm extremely glad that sidegrades are in the game, and for the exact reasons that are quoted above. It allows A LOT of MEANINGFUL customization that is still balanced. A fast, hard hitting cycler with a shit load of CoF and bullets will excel in close combat, but if a noob with the base gun engages the veteran who customized his weapon that way at long or even medium range, the veteran is screwed unless he can get close enough. To me, that is a good way of customization and balance. Options.

[Sirisian]

MasterChief096, I'm still fighting against the idea. (That's my quote the first one. Why did you remove the citation?).

I've made it clear that I hate the idea of sidegrades and would prefer more thought out upgrades for weapons and vehicles rather that statistical changes. However, as Raymac said we can't have such a system since if you can pay money for resources it's now buying power. In the wonderful world of subscriptions that's not a problem. If I play for 30 minutes and legitimately gain resources I could buy upgrades. (For instance buying 4 heat seeking rockets for my decimator or smoke grenade launchers for my tank to help friendlies push forward). However, that kind of mechanic is basically destroyed if you can buy resources.

I hope SOE realizes this and adds upgrades and such into the game that can only be retrieved from playing the game and getting resources legitimately. If I save up for long enough I could potentially have a very powerful weapon or vehicle. That is I would not spend resources on other things in order to fully upgrade a weapon, armor, or a vehicle).

// Edit also if it isn't obvious I don't care about balance when it comes to upgrades. Everyone will have access to resources so it's not exceptionally unfair. Making a comment like "oh he killed me only because he had upgrade X" is valid. It would mean the player saved up and got an upgrade they had unlocked instead of wasting resources on lesser upgrades. Still taking a risk unless you really save up and fully upgrade a vehicle/weapon. Would be cool to save up for like 12 hours and pull out a fully upgraded weapon and armor or something. I don't find that kind of stuff cheap as long as it can't be bought.

[nomotog]

I actually do have a problem with buying permanent upgrades. Maybe really small ones like carrying an extra clip of some gun, or slightly improving the use of a sidegrade like extending the range of your night vision scope. I don't think you should be able to buy a permanent upgrade to a weapon though.

[NapalmEnima]

I actually do have a problem with buying permanent upgrades. Maybe really small ones like carrying an extra clip of some gun, or slightly improving the use of a sidegrade like extending the range of your night vision scope. I don't think you should be able to buy a permanent upgrade to a weapon though.

I suspect we'll be able to lay down resources to gain permanent access to weapon alternates. I believe (based on things Higby has said) that all the tweaky bolt-on-after-the-fact stuff will cost resources per installation.

And they also will be "side grades". Anything that ups damage (for example) will lower something else (worse recoil, lower accuracy, something).