[Wild and Crazy Idea] Flatten the upgrade tiers?

[Armonddd]

So just a question for you: In your opinion every ship, weapon, and component should be available from the start? There should be no upgrades for components, and everything is exactly the same at the start as at the highest level of competition?

 

In ground PvP should there be no PvP gear? Everyone gets the same base stats + whatever their class provides and thats it? IMO thats what no progression means, nothing to achieve, buy, unlock, or gain.

 

I could probably play a game like this, but lets be honest, how many games are like this. Now how many successful games?

 

The way Guild Wars worked was, there were around 1300 skills from three campaigns (standalone boxes) and one expansion (which required at least one campaign). You could equip only eight skills at once, and only one of them could be an elite skill. In the standard 8v8 combat, this meant you only had 64 slots to work with.

 

As you played PvP, you earned faction. You could talk to an NPC to unlock any skill in the game (assuming you'd bought the relevant campaign/expansion). This didn't actually grant it to a PvE character, since they had alternate ways of learning skills, but we'll get to that.

 

Gear was similarly gated. All gear was fairly equal -- you might get to choose between +30 health always, or +45 health while debuffed, or +5 armor, for example. The same NPC would unlock gear for you, or again you could earn it through PvE.

 

PvP-only characters had access to every unlocked skill and could create unlimited sets of gear using any unlocked modifications. Once something was unlocked for your account, you had it forever for everyone. Unlocking a particular build might take half an hour of PvP. Unlocking everything important took maybe a few weeks; unlocking literally everything (if only to say that you had) took maybe a few months.

 

This game was, before various balance issues introduced with the third campaign and expansion, popular enough that the SF-based company flew themselves and their players out to Germany for live audience world championship matches and prize money... twice.

[FridgeLM]

605,000,000 people play chess

 

http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/6376-agon-releases-new-chess-player-statistics-from-yougov.html

 

Let me rephrase then.

 

I want GSF to be more popular among people who regularly play video games than chess. Progression is, for whatever reason, a popular mechanic. It keeps people playing who otherwise wouldn't have as much motivation, which is good for the player pool.

[DamascusAdontise]

The way Guild Wars worked was, there were around 1300 skills from three campaigns (standalone boxes) and one expansion (which required at least one campaign). You could equip only eight skills at once, and only one of them could be an elite skill. In the standard 8v8 combat, this meant you only had 64 slots to work with.

 

As you played PvP, you earned faction. You could talk to an NPC to unlock any skill in the game (assuming you'd bought the relevant campaign/expansion). This didn't actually grant it to a PvE character, since they had alternate ways of learning skills, but we'll get to that.

 

Gear was similarly gated. All gear was fairly equal -- you might get to choose between +30 health always, or +45 health while debuffed, or +5 armor, for example. The same NPC would unlock gear for you, or again you could earn it through PvE.

 

PvP-only characters had access to every unlocked skill and could create unlimited sets of gear using any unlocked modifications. Once something was unlocked for your account, you had it forever for everyone. Unlocking a particular build might take half an hour of PvP. Unlocking everything important took maybe a few weeks; unlocking literally everything (if only to say that you had) took maybe a few months.

 

This game was, before various balance issues introduced with the third campaign and expansion, popular enough that the SF-based company flew themselves and their players out to Germany for live audience world championship matches and prize money... twice.

 

Guild wars is a good example, but even in this case you had a limited form of progression. You had to unlock something once to be able to use it across your "legacy" of characters. Sounds like there was plenty to earn / unlock / buy in this sense. Faction points replace skill points, cash, or in this case requisition. Basically same idea different application.

 

Even the armor, sounds like you had to get in some way shape or form, not just from a item selection screen where everything shows up.

 

I would call this minimalist progression, but you have to realize as well that they still had their own ways of keeping players interested (content injections via purchasable expansions) this model is very different from what we have in GSF and im not sure that it applies directly.

 

Also its important to note that Guild Wars is no longer played, indicating perhaps that the game model while fun to play was not ultimately sustainable.

 

There was one other game (which I cant remember) that was skill based, hot lots to choose from, nearly infinite combinations. Skills achieved through loot drop in dungeons, basic pvp etc etc but even this game launched to a lackluster response and eventually failed.

 

As evidenced by popular modern games, progression (whether you agree or not) has become a cornerstone of both PvE and PvP games, and for good reason. People like to build stuff up, human nature I guess.

 

(Edit: on a further re-read of your post it sounds like you dont mind progression, its gear gaps (the difference between new/ungeared and veteran/geared players, in guild wars "most" gear was equal which is probably the biggest difference between that game and this, I dont think the argument is "should we have progression" its here and we have to deal with it, the question is more like "can we make progression a little faster" - and ive mentioned at least IMO how this could be done without alienating the player base to a large degree,)

Edited April 25, 2014 by DamascusAdontise

[Kuciwalker]

Also its important to note that Guild Wars is no longer played, indicating perhaps that the game model while fun to play was not ultimately sustainable.

 

This is an utterly ridiculous statement. There is a far more obvious explanation for why people don't play Guild Wars anymore.

[Sidenti]

re 2: no **** you can easily kill a Titan, that's why I said Eagle. That some higher-level ships had crippling flaws do to Freelancer's broken AOE damage physics isn't relevant.

 

I couldn't FIND anything with the Eagle in it, or I'd have used that instead. I mean, the game IS over a decade old now.

[DamascusAdontise]

This is an utterly ridiculous statement. There is a far more obvious explanation for why people don't play Guild Wars anymore.

 

Stating something like this without an explanation is a "ridiculous statement" its akin to "You know what makes tomatoes great." and then not following it up with why please enlighten me (not that it matters) as to the many things that caused GW to fail (lemme guess faction / class imbalance / devs out of tune? Same story in every game) Im not here to fight with you but if you want to get upset be my guest.

 

Im sure there are a multitude of reasons why the game failed. The exercise was this though:

 

Can you name a current popular successful MMORPG that has no progression, and so far the answer is no. All we are getting is old games so far past their prime that they aren't relevant to the discussion or games that have since gone defunct (for whatever reason)

 

I am positing that games with less or no progression have a more limited life spawn than games that have a rich progression.

 

Once again we can debate whether we like progression or not but fact of the matter its in this game, now do we want to re-invent the wheel or get people into the components they need faster? If the later there are ways to do this that the dev's may actually support. Re-tooling their entire progression system though im sure is not on their list, tweaking maybe but reworking (I should hope not, didn't people learn anything from SWG)

 

(Also I disagree that flattening the curve would keep new players from getting rolled, it would give them a better chance but if you give a sniper rifle to an army sharpshooter and then a sniper rifle to a random person who has never fired a gun, then you pit them against eachother.... do you think the odds of each winning is even? Even with equal talents / components skill would drive the same large gap it does today between new and veteran players, there is NO replacement for practice / experience.)

Edited April 25, 2014 by DamascusAdontise

[Kuciwalker]

Stating something like this without an explanation is a "ridiculous statement" its akin to "You know what makes tomatoes great." and then not following it up with why please enlighten me (not that it matters) as to the many things that caused GW to fail (lemme guess faction / class imbalance / devs out of tune? Same story in every game) Im not here to fight with you but if you want to get upset be my guest.

 

Guild Wars didn't fail. People don't play Guild Wars any more because they're playing Guild Wars 2.

[General_Brass]

Guild wars is a good example, but even in this case you had a limited form of progression. You had to unlock something once to be able to use it across your "legacy" of characters. Sounds like there was plenty to earn / unlock / buy in this sense. Faction points replace skill points, cash, or in this case requisition. Basically same idea different application.

 

 

Actually with Guild Wars you could buy the PvP package and have everything unlocked. Which is I believe what they adopted as the default for GW2. You go into PvP you are maxxed.

 

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Player_versus_Player

 

I am really curious whats prompting your position here. Progression based PvP isn't even very popular amongst MMORPG players. Thats why there are more PVE/RP servers than PvP. People don't want to engage in contests of who can suffer more.

Edited April 25, 2014 by General_Brass

[Sidenti]

Thats why there are more PVE/RP servers than PvP. People don't want to engage in contests of who can suffer more.

 

Clearly, you've never been married.

[Armonddd]

Stating something like this without an explanation is a "ridiculous statement" its akin to "You know what makes tomatoes great." and then not following it up with why please enlighten me (not that it matters) as to the many things that caused GW to fail (lemme guess faction / class imbalance / devs out of tune? Same story in every game)

 

Each campaign past the first introduced two new classes. These classes were all far overtuned and/or broken (for example, assassins got teleport abilities that let them completely ignore the resource of positioning that everyone else had to delicately manage, and paragons were designed to be too good so people would be interested in playing them).

 

Skills also suffered from power creep, particularly in the third campaign and the expansion. As the number of broken builds increased, people started leaving until there were maybe a few hundred people worldwide playing competitively (which often came down to "whose gimmick wins first").

 

Can you name a current popular successful MMORPG that has no progression, and so far the answer is no.

 

By definition, RPGs have progression. The basic point of an RPG is storytelling, and thus the story must progress for the game to advance.

 

You appear to have misinterpreted my description of Guild Wars. Progression wasn't really a thing. Once you unlocked the "generic useful in every situation" item mods (which took like a few days), all you needed to worry about when making a new build was your skills. Unlocking a completely new bar took 10k faction, and you'd earn like 500 faction per match in the nubbiest of arenas. If you played any content that required you to make a team before going in (what a concept, every group was premade), your faction per match and faction per hour went through the roof.

 

When I was playing Hero's Ascent, one of the two biggest competitive game types, I'd cap faction (at 10k) after a few "runs" (you'd play matches until you lost, and we might lose after three or four matches because we were bads). Breaks to dump faction because you were hitting the cap were super common.

 

And, of course, if you wanted to play a new build with skills you hadn't yet unlocked, you could easily build up faction to unlock them... or you could go to PvE, spend a trivial amount of money on learning the skill on your PvE character, and have it unlocked for PvP.

 

And just in case it wasn't easy enough to unlock things, ArenaNet sold "unlock bundles" for real world money. You could buy a digital edition of the campaign and get a discount on the unlock bundle, which would give your account access to every single skill that campaign introduced.

 

All we are getting is old games so far past their prime that they aren't relevant to the discussion or games that have since gone defunct (for whatever reason)

 

Old games are never irrelevant. Just because a game is past its prime doesn't in any way mean we can't learn from what made it good and what eventually caused it to fall.

 

Guild Wars didn't fail. People don't play Guild Wars any more because they're playing Guild Wars 2.

 

Guild Wars failed because Izzy decided paragons and dervishes weren't going to be popular if they weren't overpowered (he explicitly said that in a private forum that was, naturally, leaked). He also decided at some point that an expansion should mean people get more powerful, so he made skills more powerful because he couldn't increase the level cap.

 

I wish they'd named it something other than Guild Wars 2. World of Tyria would have been fine; GW2 just is not a Guild Wars game, and it's honestly weaker for that. On a related note, class balance problems showed up a lot faster in GW2 than they did in Guild Wars.

 

Clearly, you've never been married.

 

go away

[DamascusAdontise]

So I guess im wrong on the GW failed thing, I tip my hat to you sir. I wont fail to point out though that the game is not devoid of any progression at all, its just limited in principal (thats kind of the whole point behind GW isnt it?) They even increased progression from GW1 to GW2 (raising level cap from 20 to 80) Also its safe to say that GW 2 is not wildly popular, so it fails on at least one of the basic criteria (no progression)

 

Despite this very pristine example, the position still stands: Progression is used in games as a player retention tool, specifically in this game , its very likely not going anywhere. With that said what are some ways we can get players into components faster? So far we have increased dailies and cadet bonus, re-positioning of important skills? Thoughts?

 

(Getting tired of debating semantics about usage of the word progression, suffice to say most if not all games use it in some form or another, and most also use it in PvP - it is a well established standard and a popular one, no amount of arguing can change this)

[Armonddd]

They even increased progression from GW1 to GW2 (raising level cap from 20 to 80) Also its safe to say that GW 2 is not wildly popular, so it fails on at least one of the basic criteria (no progression)

 

Actually there's even less progression in GW2. If you want to PvP, you just make a character, go through the ten minute starting zone, and hop on over to the PvP areas. Bam, you are instantly level 80 with all the perks and benefits implied... until you leave the area.

 

And I wouldn't say it's not popular, just that it's bad.

 

Despite this very pristine example, the position still stands: Progression is used in games as a player retention tool, specifically in this game , its very likely not going anywhere. With that said what are some ways we can get players into components faster? So far we have increased dailies and cadet bonus, re-positioning of important skills? Thoughts?

 

Well, if we're talking about actual changes that would be implemented... forget about it. EA makes too much money through cartel coin sales and ship-to-fleet conversions to care about the imbalances they cause. That's why this is a Wild and Crazy Idea.

[DamascusAdontise]

Actually with Guild Wars you could buy the PvP package and have everything unlocked. Which is I believe what they adopted as the default for GW2. You go into PvP you are maxxed.

 

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Player_versus_Player

 

I am really curious whats prompting your position here. Progression based PvP isn't even very popular amongst MMORPG players. Thats why there are more PVE/RP servers than PvP. People don't want to engage in contests of who can suffer more.

 

I obviously don't know enough about GW so ill stop arguing (and making myself look like an ***) suffice to say its an exception to the rule I was trying to illustrate.

 

I disagree that its not popular, most games that are MMORPG and have PvP that I have played are progression based (buy more ships/mechs/weapons unlock additional usefulness etc) im honestly flabbergasted that someone would suggest that it doesn't happen or that people don't like it. In the vast majority of the games I play its literally ALL people talk about (what components should I use, which ship, which is better this or this upgrade)

 

In its most limited form its a level (for which they usually lump people into multiple level driven groups, where some players of a certain level have an advantage over others - albeit a small one)

 

Games with no progression at all seem to be the "odd man out" with very limited examples like GW and the other game I can't remember. Progression based PvP is the standard (like it or hate it) in most of the modern games I play. There is always something, a weapon, armor, shiny doodads you glue to your skull (I dunno lol) that help you do something that another player with less experience cannot do.

 

Call me crazy but I dont see anything wrong with upgrades, pvp armor, additional components you dont get at the start (that you have to unlock) its a very natural way to do things IMO, and one that resonates with gaming specifically.

 

(Note: this thread is being de-railed for an ambiguous "definition" battle about the word progression, all I wanted to do was point out that if you did what the OP suggested there would be nothing to "grind" nothing to "upgrade" and that it might drive people away from the game rather than bring them in, apparently I am on an island and the only one that actually likes building up my ship / character. Im honestly surprised, and that doesn't happen every day. Carry on and enjoy please ill go back to my unbalanced troll bridge)

 

(edit also thank you for plowing through the GW stuff, an interesting read and an honest display of information)

Edited April 25, 2014 by DamascusAdontise

[Armonddd]

im honestly flabbergasted that someone would suggest that it doesn't happen or that people don't like it. In the vast majority of the games I play its literally ALL people talk about (what components should I use, which ship, which is better this or this upgrade)

 

People will always chase the carrot. Some carrots are designed to be more fulfilling than others, or more fun to chase. Some are designed to keep you going as long as possible, in the hopes that you won't burn out and fall over before getting there.

 

In a PvP game, the carrot is the competition and the thrill. Most games have ladders, and the carrot is at the top. Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 have weapon and item skins; there the carrot is playing barbie.

[zaskar]

Let me rephrase then.

 

I want GSF to be more popular among people who regularly play video games than chess. Progression is, for whatever reason, a popular mechanic. It keeps people playing who otherwise wouldn't have as much motivation, which is good for the player pool.

 

I belong to one of the largest gaming communities there is and the vast majority play chess. So let me rephrase, you want it to be popular with millinials with the attention span of a gnat.

[zaskar]

Why the hell are you talking about Guild Wars at all as an analog? Think world of tanks, that is an analog to GSF.

[Kuciwalker]

Why the hell are you talking about Guild Wars at all as an analog? Think world of tanks, that is an analog to GSF.

 

I am talking about GSF not as it is, but as it ought to be.

[FridgeLM]

I belong to one of the largest gaming communities there is and the vast majority play chess. So let me rephrase, you want it to be popular with millinials with the attention span of a gnat.

 

We're all very impressed that you enjoy chess and seem to think anecdotal evidence can be extrapolated to make vast generalizations, but can't spell millennial or use the edit button instead of double posting.

 

Sorry if that came off hostile, but that was a phenomenally condescending post.

[Verain]

It would NOT be acceptable to remove our progress, etc.

 

There's certainly nothing wrong with that game model, however. But messing up the people who have been playing this game seriously since launch is obviously out of the question.

[DamascusAdontise]

It would NOT be acceptable to remove our progress, etc.

 

There's certainly nothing wrong with that game model, however. But messing up the people who have been playing this game seriously since launch is obviously out of the question.

 

what took me 4 pages and hundreds of words took you 39 words *facepalm* well said

Edited April 25, 2014 by DamascusAdontise

[Armonddd]

It would NOT be acceptable to remove our progress, etc.

 

It wouldn't?

 

what took me 4 pages and hundreds of words took you 39 words *facepalm* well said

 

And I challenged it in two.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Armonddd

[Verain]

It wouldn't?

 

Correct. It would be NGE all over the place. The playerbase commits to many things about a game when they begin and continue to play it. While the ship leveling could undergo some changes, deleting it entirely is entirely out of the question- that is a slap in the face style of game move.

 

 

Right now, if you have played GSF a ton, it's with the current model, where you have to play weak ships to get req on them quickly, and req is a power level, and 150k req makes a fully mastered ship. You can tweak that a bit, but you can't delete it.

 

And if you actually did move to a flat form, you'd have to actually find a way to compensate players who have, ex, a mastered ship, versus players who do not. What reward would a player with all ships mastered get in this world? Obviously it needs to be a reward in commensurate to his req earned, because he earned that req. Such a thing might not even exist in another style of game.

 

 

It's fine to launch a game with currency based upgrades (some of them actually related to real world money), and it's fine to launch a game without it.

 

It's entirely ludicrous to suddenly change the former into the latter.

[Armonddd]

Correct. It would be NGE all over the place. The playerbase commits to many things about a game when they begin and continue to play it. While the ship leveling could undergo some changes, deleting it entirely is entirely out of the question- that is a slap in the face style of game move.

 

You say that as though after the upgrades squish, your LLCs wouldn't have +5% damage, -10% cost, +8% ROF, choice of +8% crit or +2 degrees firing arc -5% tracking penalty, and choice of +16% hull damage or +18% shield damage.

 

We're not proposing removing upgrades -- we're proposing making them accessible without progression.

 

And if you actually did move to a flat form, you'd have to actually find a way to compensate players who have, ex, a mastered ship, versus players who do not.

 

Why? That is exactly the point of this change -- to not have there be a difference between players with mastered ships and players without.

 

What reward would a player with all ships mastered get in this world? Obviously it needs to be a reward in commensurate to his req earned, because he earned that req. Such a thing might not even exist in another style of game.

 

Why? He earned that req by playing the game. In high quality PvP games, your reward for playing the game is getting good at the game.

 

Look at Total Annihilation or any of its successors. Look at TF2 before all the updates I don't understand anything about. Look at Guild Wars. Hell, look back to games like StarFox and Goldeneye. None of them reward you for grinding -- your reward for gaining experience is having experience.

 

It's fine to launch a game with currency based upgrades (some of them actually related to real world money), and it's fine to launch a game without it.

 

It's entirely ludicrous to suddenly change the former into the latter.

 

It's really not fine to launch a competitive PvP game that rewards grind over skill. It never has been, and it never will be.

 

It would be a massive change to the game to remove the upgrade system. That doesn't mean it would be a bad thing.

[Verain]

We're not proposing removing upgrades -- we're proposing making them accessible without progression.

 

And that's unacceptable. When you got your progression, you earned a delta between yourself and players who have not done that. Many players have actually converted ship to fleet req with actual dollars to get an edge in this fight. You probably disapprove of that- that's fine. But does your raging hatred actually extend to the point that you would take away what has been earned and in some cases paid for with dollars?

 

Perhaps it does. That just makes you a zealot, though.

 

Why? That is exactly the point of this change -- to not have there be a difference between players with mastered ships and players without.

 

 

And it's far too late for that. The game launched with the angle that you had to play to get mastered ships, which are the good kind of ship. It's far too late to change that.

 

Why? He earned that req by playing the game. In high quality PvP games, your reward for playing the game is getting good at the game.

 

Irrelevant. That's true here too, but you also have to "level up" your ship.

 

Look at Total Annihilation or any of its successors. Look at TF2 before all the updates I don't understand anything about. Look at Guild Wars. Hell, look back to games like StarFox and Goldeneye. None of them reward you for grinding -- your reward for gaining experience is having experience.

 

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that model, which is excellent. (Also note that Starfox and Goldeneye made you unlock stuff by "grinding", but whatever)

 

The issue is, this game isn't those games. Everyone with mastered ships would basically be having them deleted. The point about how powerful this or that is is semantic- the thing you earned is actually that delta between your ship and a new character. Far, FAR too late for that.

 

It's really not fine to launch a competitive PvP game that rewards grind over skill.

 

Except it keeps happening, and more importantly, you've been playing this one. It must be fine to you because you're playing it. I'd also argue that it doesn't reward "grind over skill". The fact is, however, that the amount you have played does impact how good your ship is- it's simply not the only factor.

 

 

It never has been, and it never will be.

 

In Armonddd's world, whose logic not even Armonddd obeys.

 

 

Many games have an upgrades system. WoW does, and I think it's doing acceptably well- certainly better than like 2-3 SWTORs, right?

 

It would be a massive change to the game to remove the upgrade system. That doesn't mean it would be a bad thing.

 

It would be ruinous. The basic social contract with a level or gear based system is that the level or gear won't suddenly spring unearned into the arms of your other players. To some players- especially those who paid to stack req onto a ship, an event which can cost around 40 USD- this would not at all be ok. I'm sure you hate those guys so much that you are totally ok with a game change that breaks them, while also crapping on players who have earned an edge in ships. But this is that kind of game, so no, they can't go changing that.

 

 

Now, a similar issue we likely agree on is that the delta between unmastered and mastered ships is too high, and that there should probably be angles to allow players to "cheat" a little here and there when it comes to playing better ships that they have earned. You might even agree with my assessment that the "big money" 10k and 15k tiers should probably be shrunk to 7k and 11k, with requistion refunds in fleet req. But I doubt we'll even see such a moderate change.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Verain

[Devrius]

Correct. It would be NGE all over the place. The playerbase commits to many things about a game when they begin and continue to play it. While the ship leveling could undergo some changes, deleting it entirely is entirely out of the question- that is a slap in the face style of game move.

 

 

Right now, if you have played GSF a ton, it's with the current model, where you have to play weak ships to get req on them quickly, and req is a power level, and 150k req makes a fully mastered ship. You can tweak that a bit, but you can't delete it.

 

And if you actually did move to a flat form, you'd have to actually find a way to compensate players who have, ex, a mastered ship, versus players who do not. What reward would a player with all ships mastered get in this world? Obviously it needs to be a reward in commensurate to his req earned, because he earned that req. Such a thing might not even exist in another style of game.

 

 

It's fine to launch a game with currency based upgrades (some of them actually related to real world money), and it's fine to launch a game without it.

 

It's entirely ludicrous to suddenly change the former into the latter.

 

So basically, even if it would mean more players and with that better matching, more competition, faster queues, you wouldn't want upgrades to be cheaper or even free?

 

Is it that your ego wouldn't never allow it because it would "devalue" your efforts, or are you simply terrified at the thought of facing others without the edge of a mastered ship?

 

Either way it's just sad...