Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
PSU: Richard Simmons - leader of the VS
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #31 | ||||||
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. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
[Ignore Me] #32 | ||||
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. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #33 | ||||
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. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
[Ignore Me] #34 | ||||
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. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #35 | ||
Colonel
|
If its just about permanent upgrades that are not tied to any piece of equipment, and are just a few %, then I see no issue leaving them always on. A few percent in an fps only has meaning on paper.
I would not like stronger bonuses that you must pick between, because I don't like character differentiation like that. You should get good at a role because you play it a lot and are good at it, not pick a role to be good at so you can play it. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
[Ignore Me] #36 | ||||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
I did a quick edit of my previous post while you were posting this (its labeled at the end).
I don't think power progression is necessary. I also dont' think it's bad for the game unless it is applied across-the-board through time-based unlocks, rather than by explicit customization decisions a player makes and has tradeoffs with. That's the context of the thread. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
[Ignore Me] #37 | ||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
One thing occurred to me that this entire thing I'm rambling about could boil down to an enhancement of the Implant system.
Instead of 3 slots for activated abilities you could have something like... 3 slots for activated abilities 4 slots for passive combat augments 3 slots passive non-combat augments (quality of life stuff) It ends up being similar to the WoW Glyph model or an EVE ship. High slots, medium slots, low slots, etc. The cert tree could unlock all the different options but you get to augment your base soldier with a ton of different options. And since you have to make choices the bonuses are meaningful and don't converge over time. I suppose that's a simpler way to look at it. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #38 | ||
Sergeant
|
I would prefer a system that has very little or no convergence. I think PS2 could benefit from a system that promotes "roles" and not "Super Soldiers." Specialized Soldiers or Load outs, similar to what Malorn mentioned above is a good system. LoL uses a system similar to this as well, very high customization and easily switched depending on play style or load out.
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #39 | |||
Sergeant Major
|
Here was my proposed system:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|