100's of Certs - Page 3

Kipper · 2012-05-05, 09:05 PM

You're right in that it likely doesn't matter if you allow people to unlock something by doing something else - so its not a game breaker.

Personally, I tend to feel more 'immersed' when rewards match up to what you did to earn them. Say like killing a wolf in Skyrim allows you to loot wolf pelts from it, I just get ever so slightly annoyed when you kill a wild animal and it drops money. Kinda makes me stop believing that little bit that what just happened made some sort of sense.

It doesn't make it any more or less fun for me personally either way; I think the word is 'satisfying'. The game says "Great job flying that Galaxy, here, have an upgrade for that vehicle!" means more than receiving generic upgrades.

But then, how you spend your points is up to you too, so... again... either way works in the end.

Gonefshn · 2012-05-05, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Duddy

So unless you're then going to have additional systems to regulate what EXP and what time counts towards what role it doesn't make practical sense to only earn certs for the role you're currently playing.

-------------------------------------------

I suppose the two big questions that need to be asked are:
- What benefit does restricting the certs you earn to the role you were playing have over allowing any certs to be spent on any role?
- Given the previous, does that create more "fun" (or reduce more loss of "fun") over the alternative?

To the first part, I don't know what you mean about "unless". Having those systems that put your exp into the role your playing/vehicle you are driving/gun your shooting is incredibly straightforward. You play medic, you further your medic cert tree. Simple and easy to understand. Not to mention that BF3 and many other games have systems like that working already.

I see your point that maybe its not fun to play every tree to unlock everything. But to me the other side of it is simple. Why should you be able to unlock all the Infiltrator skills and have all the best infiltrator abilities if all you ever do is fly a reaver??

Having a system that is based on learning by doing creates a more tangible sense of accomplishment, and also makes more sense as a fair reward.

If you have a system where you earn universal XP that can then be put into any category, regardless of how it was earned, you have a problem. People who want to unlock HA or the MBT certs or any specific thing will find what role on the battlefield can get them this XP the quickest. In any game like this people are eventually going to figure out what ways are best to "farm" for XP. With universal XP you will have XP farmers instead of people who want to earn abilities for a class spending quality time using the class or vehicle to earn it.

Duddy · 2012-05-05, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

Why should you be able to unlock all the Infiltrator skills and have all the best infiltrator abilities if all you ever do is fly a reaver??

Having a system that is based on learning by doing creates a more tangible sense of accomplishment, and also makes more sense as a fair reward.

If you have a system where you earn universal XP that can then be put into any category, regardless of how it was earned, you have a problem. In any game like this people are eventually going to figure out what ways are best to "farm" for XP. With universal XP you will have XP farmers instead of people who want to earn abilities for a class spending quality time using the class or vehicle to earn it.

For that first bit, allow me to propose to you two questions:

- Why, in a game that utilises "classes" for balance, would we ever think it a good idea to not facilitate playing whatever class was needed, rather than only the class the player thinks is most effective?
- Given the previous, why would we provide incentive for gravitating towards only one role at a time?

The system you suggest penalises players for playing roles that are needed and instead rewards playing roles that are perceived as more effective by the player. It also promotes stale gameplay because as players gravitate and stick to the most effective roles and probably has a negative effect on diversity people are less likely to change role.

As for that second part, I'd say the sense of accomplishment was subjective. Personally if I had to slog through a class I would probably feel disenfranchised instead. As such I highlighted "quality time" as I'd feel I was being forced to play a class I would otherwise only play marginally.

Regarding the third section, that will happen in any game and in any system. Players gravitate to what is effective and perceived as such, regardless of whether it is what they want to do (see cookie cutter specs in WoW). Surely we should reward people for making use of the diversity of the game by allowing them to play however they want, or at the very least whilst still progressing in something they prefer!

Raka Maru · 2012-05-05, 10:43 PM

If the cert tree of anything is like those of Eve, the lower skills will be unlockable in minutes, and the higher ones will take weeks and months. You have cert points, spend them, then wait for the learning timer to complete.

Isn't PS2 cert system based on Eve?

Retrograde · 2012-05-05, 11:51 PM

Well, I think I understand the OP from playing other more defined MMO games that have a "leveling path". In a traditional MMO, you suck as a healer/tank/dps until you get to a certain level where you have the tools to participate. Planetside's design was exactly the opposite. You start with the tools you need. Levels just open up new play experiences.

PS1 always felt more like Counter-strike's money system. Once you earned some coin, you got the weapon combo you liked best. Nothing else really mattered after that. PS2 adds some complexity with classes, but hopefully the same idea still stands.

So, it's kinda like this (for the new people). Before you grab the base's courtyard, it's really open ended with vehicles, aircraft, max units, etc...After your side gets into the courtyard and can spawn there, it's an indoor pure infantry-style fight. At least that's how I remember it (BR20 era).

That being said, there were really totally distinct game experiences (and derivatives of those). What made PS1 so much fun for so long was the ability to really mix these roles up to find the game you wanted to play.

Here's how I broke it down:

Cloaker - knifer, orbital strikes, etc...
Sniper - two bolt drivers for fast switching, atv/buggy to get around.
Driver - heavy and light tanks mostly.
Fighter Pilot - Air/Air, Air/Ground combat.
Infantry - Different weapon/armor mixes, max suit, gunner in any kind of craft.
Transport - Galaxy/Sunderer, ams, etc...
Support - engineer, medic, hacker.

These were not mutually exclusive. It really was mix and match. People picked a style they liked best and played that "primary" role until the situation called for your "secondary" role.

From a leveling perspective, at low level, you might be just a gunner & infantry. You hitched a ride in a transport or gunned in a tank. Once high enough level, you got a max suit or went heavy armor.

If you went air certs, you flew until the battle went indoors. Once you got higher level, you got engineer so you could repair your plane.

Or you drove a tank until it went inside, then you had heavy armor (I think that was a valid combo). Or repair, if you wanted that path. If you were like me, you flew something until the battle went inside, then died over and over in the same doorway for about two hours.

What seems different about PS2 is they compressed the roles with classes, but increased the depth at each role.

Again, this is just my .02 cents worth, but it was never about level progression.

Raka Maru · 2012-05-06, 12:17 AM

Level progression as opposed to experience expansion.

I will probably continue to play my favorite layout, tho have more options after a few months/years.

Mechzz · 2012-05-06, 03:03 AM

Interesting discussion on how the cert tree will work.

The BF system of unlocks, where you learn by doing is appropriate in that type of game because the things you unlock materially affect how well you can perform that role.

But, as we know, Planetside is all about sidegrades. In the GDC video, Higby has like 89 unspent cert points and he gave me the impression he could spend those how he wanted to, not bound by his playstyle preferences.

So my take on it so far is that you can use unspent cert points to "take a course" sort of outside the real game (e.g. at the Vanu Institute of Higher Learning) to advance any aspect of your character, not just those you've been actively playing. So I can take a course in Infil to be a better infiil. Now why would SOE let me do that if I always play Engy? Because I will play the game for longer, end of.

It's in SOE's interest to let us all unlock everything, and the only way they'll do that for a significant portion of the player base is to not bind it to our actual class choices in-game.

I understand why peeps are arguing for learning-by-doing, but I think in terms of maintaining the overall player numbers, just letting us unlock everything will win. My personal example is BC2, where I didn't get all the Assault unlocks because I didn't play the class much. Yet once I had all the unlocks that I would reasonably get, my interest in the game evaporated.

Personal experience is that my interest in a game wanes fairly quickly once I feel I've gotten as much from a game as I can, and reaching a dead-end in the cert tree is one thing that can trigger the "ok, I'm bored now" reaction. So that's why I could play PS1 for 6 months, Skyrim and Oblivion for 3 months+, but BC2 for 1 month or less. PS1 was a "bigger" game in every way and when you add the human interaction it's just a much more compelling deal than any other type of game out there.

And remember, you still have to "walk the walk" and actually play as a good infil to get any use out of those certs you spent.

So letting us spend the points on what we want isn't a bad thing for SOE (we play the game longer a la Skinner Box), it isn't a bad thing for the player as it increases satisfaction and it doesn't unbalance the game because the things unlocked by certing them do not add significant power.

tl;dr: PS1 certing for teh win

Kipper · 2012-05-06, 07:12 AM

Players don't always play the role that's needed, they play the that they want to play. If it isn't viable in one area, great news - PS2 will have multiple little battles along the front line and on multiple continents.

I didn't play battlefield classes to get unlocks - I played because they were the ones I was having fun with. Getting the unlocks was a nice reward, but being entertained for a couple of free hours was why I was playing.

Shlomoshun · 2012-05-06, 11:53 AM

I'm with Gonefishn that if you allow certs to be spent in any way, you'll have cookie-cutter advancement roles being developed. People will quickly figure out that say, for certs 1-10, spend them on this role. THen use faster XP generation from that role to stockpile certs 11-20, use them on some other new role that does better for XP generation....then use that role to gather most of your skill points you want for your 'actual' role you want to play.

Otherwise, the only way they'll get people playing the role they actually want to play from cert 1-tree completion is if they can blance the XP/hour between all the roles...For example, infiltrator (non-sniper) will not only need to gather the same XP/hour as infilitrator sniper roles, but also a MBT driver and a MAX wearer.

Open ended cert points will mean everyone will gravitate most of their playtime to whatever role gathers the most XP/hour for 'most' of their playtime. Say that's a combination of MBT Driver and Light Infantry. You'll have a battlefield dominated by MBT's and Light Infantry, and very little else. And whenever they want more XP, they'll abandon their unique role (which provides some level less XP/hour) to go back to the PowerLeveling role, whatever that is. You'll lose battlefield uniqueness and stagnate the game by allowing free-form cert distribution.

It's a balance issue where they'll need to work much harder to make any cert in every role not accellerate the XP of that role any more than any cert in any other role, if they want both battlefield diversity and open class cert advancement.

Duddy · 2012-05-06, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Shlomoshun

I'm with Gonefishn that if you allow certs to be spent in any way, you'll have cookie-cutter advancement roles being developed. People will quickly figure out that say, for certs 1-10, spend them on this role. THen use faster XP generation from that role to stockpile certs 11-20, use them on some other new role that does better for XP generation....then use that role to gather most of your skill points you want for your 'actual' role you want to play.

Otherwise, the only way they'll get people playing the role they actually want to play from cert 1-tree completion is if they can blance the XP/hour between all the roles...For example, infiltrator (non-sniper) will not only need to gather the same XP/hour as infilitrator sniper roles, but also a MBT driver and a MAX wearer.

Open ended cert points will mean everyone will gravitate most of their playtime to whatever role gathers the most XP/hour for 'most' of their playtime. Say that's a combination of MBT Driver and Light Infantry. You'll have a battlefield dominated by MBT's and Light Infantry, and very little else. And whenever they want more XP, they'll abandon their unique role (which provides some level less XP/hour) to go back to the PowerLeveling role, whatever that is. You'll lose battlefield uniqueness and stagnate the game by allowing free-form cert distribution.

It's a balance issue where they'll need to work much harder to make any cert in every role not accellerate the XP of that role any more than any cert in any other role, if they want both battlefield diversity and open class cert advancement.

I think you're foolish to believe that people won't gravitate towards what is most effective anyway. This occurs in any game with any kind of system.

Not a BF3 player so can't speak authoritatively but when BF3 came out didn't people just gravitate to the "most effective" class and play that first? My point being even in a locked system people will always go to "where the money is". PS1 however was an example of an open system, and even then people still prioritised their certs whilst levelling to maximise speed of progression (see med/engy combo).

But is that really an issue? Early on in the game I think it highly unlikely that anyone will have the "optimal" cert distribution figured out, I'd suspect that wouldn't be possible till later. Certainly harder to determine the right way to cert across the board than to say: "This is the best class, play this first".

Even "later" it doesn't matter either because at that point you want to facilitate people being able to catch up so they can enjoy the game also. The same goes for alts, nobody wants to be stuck on a low level alt that is stuck doing exclusively one role do they?

Say it did make a significant difference in cert acquiring, why would that matter? As we already know more certs provide you more-so with additional options than additional power. This isn't a traditional RPG where getting ahead automatically means becoming stronger.

It just seems to me that we're willing to kill off a part of emergent gameplay, you know allowing players to play how they want, to appease a perceived imbalance issue that probably doesn't even exist.

JimmyOmaha · 2012-05-06, 07:52 PM

This seems somewhat like a non-issue. People are going to cert into their playstyle regardless. Letting them stock up a few extra certs and get a leg up in a new area seems like no big deal. They put in some time, they earn the certs, they spend them wisely wherever they please(well maybe).

Also anyone grinding for certs isn't having much fun anyways.

Duddy · 2012-05-06, 08:07 PM

I decided to tweet Higby about this he responded with:

Originally Posted by Higby via twitter

certs can be spent anywhere, there aren't separate cert point pools.

Tweet located here: https://twitter.com/#!/mhigby/status/199287269847343104

So that answers that part of the discussion.