General Discussions

 
^ Back to top
10 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

Discussion - Should PG and CPU be combined into one?

Jump to first DEV post
Author
Immortal Guides
#21 Posted: 2017.05.16 12:26
I want to first state that I don’t know everything that is being done, so I don’t have enough context to say whether it is good or bad as part of a larger plan.

That being said however, balancing two resources in the fitting system was one of the things that gave fittings interest and depth. There is good and bad complexity, and I always felt that balancing CPU and Power Grid was good complexity. It made fittings into more of a mini game. When balanced right it allowed suit doctrines so that the suits that were meant to be armor oriented had more PG to fit armor and shield suits had more CPU to fit shields. But it also allowed trade-offs such as fitting a module that used CPU and generated PG so you could produce nonstandard fits.

My fear is that the give and take of the two resources will be gone, and we will be left with the one dimensional fitting system where you just try to fit as much as you can until you run out. I am concerned that there will be no balancing or trade-offs. No fitting a different sidearm to give you a little more PG to fit that extra armor plate. That was the sort of thing that made creating a fit fun, rather than just a chore.

I do like the fact that we will have something resembling a capacitor (operating like a mana bar in a fantasy game, for those not familiar with the capacitor in EVE.) Maybe there will be a fitting trade off over the resources it requires to fit, versus how much capacitor it will use to activate?

Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

C C P
C C P Alliance
#22 Posted: 2017.05.16 13:31
Fox Gaden wrote:

I do like the fact that we will have something resembling a capacitor (operating like a mana bar in a fantasy game, for those not familiar with the capacitor in EVE.) Maybe there will be a fitting trade off over the resources it requires to fit, versus how much capacitor it will use to activate?


This is something we are heavily looking at, we have a few design pillars that we are working from and the top one of those is


  • Balance through Quantity, Capacitor and Cooldowns
  • Universal Equipment [vs Class-Only]
  • Universal Slots [vs Offensive/Defensive, vs High/Low, vs Assault/Logistics, vs Active/Passive]
  • At most one Resource, maybe zero Resource [vs PG/CPU]
  • Earned Equipment [vs bought, vs looted]



What this means is we can allow a lot of versatility, and balance through "availability". Power can be increased or decreased by the Cap cost/recharge rate instead of pre-battle configurations of PG/CPU.

Can I "use" it vs can I "fit" it

"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

#23 Posted: 2017.05.16 13:55  |  Edited by: Moorian Flav
Would there be a way for Civilian and even possibly T1 suits use the simplified power core but T2 and T3 suits use PG/CPU? Just a thought.
Coming from DUST and EVE, I don' t really like the simplified switch but it's honestly more about how it all comes together in game. Also, I realize CCP is trying to attract more than just those from the DUST/EVE community for Nova so in that respect, I can see why a more simplified power system would seem the way to go.

I don't troll; I tell the truth.

I'm also known as "The ANTI-Propaganda Machine".

Nos Nothi
#24 Posted: 2017.05.16 13:59
CCP Rattati wrote:
Fox Gaden wrote:

I do like the fact that we will have something resembling a capacitor (operating like a mana bar in a fantasy game, for those not familiar with the capacitor in EVE.) Maybe there will be a fitting trade off over the resources it requires to fit, versus how much capacitor it will use to activate?


This is something we are heavily looking at, we have a few design pillars that we are working from and the top one of those is


  • Balance through Quantity, Capacitor and Cooldowns
  • Universal Equipment [vs Class-Only]
  • Universal Slots [vs Offensive/Defensive, vs High/Low, vs Assault/Logistics, vs Active/Passive]
  • At most one Resource, maybe zero Resource [vs PG/CPU]
  • Earned Equipment [vs bought, vs looted]



What this means is we can allow a lot of versatility, and balance through "availability". Power can be increased or decreased by the Cap cost/recharge rate instead of pre-battle configurations of PG/CPU.

Can I "use" it vs can I "fit" it


how would an earned equipment system work?

"Spilling floor cleaner only makes the floor cleaner." - Draxus Prime

Closed Beta Vet

Scout

C C P
C C P Alliance
#25 Posted: 2017.05.16 14:10
Moorian Flav wrote:
Would there be a way for Civilian and even possibly T1 suits use the simplified power core but T2 and T3 suits use PG/CPU? Just a thought.
Coming from DUST and EVE, I don' t really like the simplified switch but it's honestly more about how it all comes together in game. Also, I realize CCP is trying to attract more than just those from the DUST/EVE community for Nova so in that respect, I can see why a more simplified power system would seem the way to go.


something we absolutely consider

"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

OSG Planetary Operations
#26 Posted: 2017.05.16 14:16
Rattati,

Will passive modules such as Armor Repairers consume capacitor as they run? Or is capcitor reserved for more active effects such as equipment? (Ie Repair tools)
C C P
C C P Alliance
#27 Posted: 2017.05.16 14:17
Draxus Prime wrote:
CCP Rattati wrote:
Fox Gaden wrote:

I do like the fact that we will have something resembling a capacitor (operating like a mana bar in a fantasy game, for those not familiar with the capacitor in EVE.) Maybe there will be a fitting trade off over the resources it requires to fit, versus how much capacitor it will use to activate?


This is something we are heavily looking at, we have a few design pillars that we are working from and the top one of those is


  • Balance through Quantity, Capacitor and Cooldowns
  • Universal Equipment [vs Class-Only]
  • Universal Slots [vs Offensive/Defensive, vs High/Low, vs Assault/Logistics, vs Active/Passive]
  • At most one Resource, maybe zero Resource [vs PG/CPU]
  • Earned Equipment [vs bought, vs looted]



What this means is we can allow a lot of versatility, and balance through "availability". Power can be increased or decreased by the Cap cost/recharge rate instead of pre-battle configurations of PG/CPU.

Can I "use" it vs can I "fit" it


how would an earned equipment system work?


good question

"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

C C P
C C P Alliance
#28 Posted: 2017.05.16 14:18
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Rattati,

Will passive modules such as Armor Repairers consume capacitor as they run? Or is capcitor reserved for more active effects such as equipment? (Ie Repair tools)


One way to balance is to reduce Cap when you fit Passive Equipment, less to use in battle for your Actives

"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Nos Nothi
#29 Posted: 2017.05.16 14:20
CCP Rattati wrote:
Draxus Prime wrote:
CCP Rattati wrote:
Fox Gaden wrote:

I do like the fact that we will have something resembling a capacitor (operating like a mana bar in a fantasy game, for those not familiar with the capacitor in EVE.) Maybe there will be a fitting trade off over the resources it requires to fit, versus how much capacitor it will use to activate?


This is something we are heavily looking at, we have a few design pillars that we are working from and the top one of those is


  • Balance through Quantity, Capacitor and Cooldowns
  • Universal Equipment [vs Class-Only]
  • Universal Slots [vs Offensive/Defensive, vs High/Low, vs Assault/Logistics, vs Active/Passive]
  • At most one Resource, maybe zero Resource [vs PG/CPU]
  • Earned Equipment [vs bought, vs looted]



What this means is we can allow a lot of versatility, and balance through "availability". Power can be increased or decreased by the Cap cost/recharge rate instead of pre-battle configurations of PG/CPU.

Can I "use" it vs can I "fit" it


how would an earned equipment system work?


good question

like get x amount of ammo resupplied you would unlock a better nanonhive?

"Spilling floor cleaner only makes the floor cleaner." - Draxus Prime

Closed Beta Vet

Scout

C C P
C C P Alliance
#30 Posted: 2017.05.16 14:25
Draxus Prime wrote:
like get x amount of ammo resupplied you would unlock a better nanonhive?


not set in stone, but think battlefield class progression, plus sharing items between classes once they are unlocked. The more classes played, the bigger the inventory.

This is in regards to basic class gear such as repair tool for logis, cloak field for infiltrators etc

"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Obscure Reference
#31 Posted: 2017.05.16 14:26
CCP Rattati wrote:
Fox Gaden wrote:

I do like the fact that we will have something resembling a capacitor (operating like a mana bar in a fantasy game, for those not familiar with the capacitor in EVE.) Maybe there will be a fitting trade off over the resources it requires to fit, versus how much capacitor it will use to activate?


This is something we are heavily looking at, we have a few design pillars that we are working from and the top one of those is


  • Balance through Quantity, Capacitor and Cooldowns
  • Universal Equipment [vs Class-Only]
  • Universal Slots [vs Offensive/Defensive, vs High/Low, vs Assault/Logistics, vs Active/Passive]
  • At most one Resource, maybe zero Resource [vs PG/CPU]
  • Earned Equipment [vs bought, vs looted]



What this means is we can allow a lot of versatility, and balance through "availability". Power can be increased or decreased by the Cap cost/recharge rate instead of pre-battle configurations of PG/CPU.

Can I "use" it vs can I "fit" it



Can I ask why the departure from Dust's mechanics? I'm not saying they shouldn't evolve, but the existing fitting system was one of main strengths of Dust
#32 Posted: 2017.05.16 14:26  |  Edited by: byte modal
Just to reiterate my earlier posts, and to **simplify it so as not to get lost in the thread:
10 Complexity isn't bad.
20 Teach complexity, and users will follow (quality interface design and education beyond a low-res PDF are helpful).
30 Simplifying isn't bad either, if it adds quality to the overall product.
40 Don't replace complexity with simplicity unless it's the complexity that is the issue (and not poor education---see #2).
50 GOTO and PLAY 10

all that correlation and causation stuff. because, ...eyebrows.

Alrighty. I've said my part and will try to shufnitthefrikerp and let the discussion evolve. Big hugs, all around.
@CCP Rattati, thanks for the clarification and discussion points.

<3


*EDIT*


**no, the irony is not lost on me. ;)

kitten bacon taco (nom)

OSG Planetary Operations
#33 Posted: 2017.05.16 14:27
CCP Rattati wrote:
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Rattati,

Will passive modules such as Armor Repairers consume capacitor as they run? Or is capcitor reserved for more active effects such as equipment? (Ie Repair tools)


One way to balance is to reduce Cap when you fit Passive Equipment, less to use in battle for your Actives


Makes sense. How do you plan to limit player behavior such as dual tanking or running fits that would normally be restricted due to resource limitations? The dual cost system allowed developers to restrict certain modules from being used with each other due to high usage of one resource, but encouraged mixing certain modules together due to high usage of different resources.

It seems like removing this duality would take away a lot of developer tools for balancing. How do you plan to compensate for this loss of control?
WarRavens
Imperium Eden
#34 Posted: 2017.05.16 14:40
Juno Tristan wrote:
CCP Rattati wrote:
Fox Gaden wrote:

I do like the fact that we will have something resembling a capacitor (operating like a mana bar in a fantasy game, for those not familiar with the capacitor in EVE.) Maybe there will be a fitting trade off over the resources it requires to fit, versus how much capacitor it will use to activate?


This is something we are heavily looking at, we have a few design pillars that we are working from and the top one of those is


  • Balance through Quantity, Capacitor and Cooldowns
  • Universal Equipment [vs Class-Only]
  • Universal Slots [vs Offensive/Defensive, vs High/Low, vs Assault/Logistics, vs Active/Passive]
  • At most one Resource, maybe zero Resource [vs PG/CPU]
  • Earned Equipment [vs bought, vs looted]



What this means is we can allow a lot of versatility, and balance through "availability". Power can be increased or decreased by the Cap cost/recharge rate instead of pre-battle configurations of PG/CPU.

Can I "use" it vs can I "fit" it



Can I ask why the departure from Dust's mechanics? I'm not saying they shouldn't evolve, but the existing fitting system was one of main strengths of Dust

I too was a big fan of the system. Going from the dual system to a singular one just seems odd and harder to balance.

Change the Ion Pistol Fitting Skill Pls.

#PortDust514

'Echo is a dirty hooker' - UnclS2

Zarena Family
#35 Posted: 2017.05.16 14:42
Few questions:

- Is there place for turn off modules at battlefield? (more resources for another modules/less signature)
- How items/modules quantity and quality influence signature factor?
- Is there place for overcharging modules? (eg I turn off 2 modules on the fly and I get boost to another for 20-30%?)
Twisted

Not much time left...

Nos Nothi
#36 Posted: 2017.05.16 15:31
From reading through the thread, it seems to me that some people are equating complexity with depth. I don't think that is necessarily true. Some of the best games, video and otherwise are fairly simple, yet still have depth.

My problem with complexity for complexity's sake is that the more moving parts there are, the more various interactions there are, the more room for glitches and potential abuses that can occur.

If there is a legit reason for having more complex parts, and they substantially add to the depth, fun, and strategy for the game, I am all for it. But merely having complexity for its own sake is just asking to revisit the worst parts of Dust; the brokenness, glitchiness, and imbalance that ruined an otherwise amazing game.

Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.

Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.

OSG Planetary Operations
#37 Posted: 2017.05.16 15:49
One Eyed King wrote:
From reading through the thread, it seems to me that some people are equating complexity with depth. I don't think that is necessarily true. Some of the best games, video and otherwise are fairly simple, yet still have depth.

My problem with complexity for complexity's sake is that the more moving parts there are, the more various interactions there are, the more room for glitches and potential abuses that can occur.

If there is a legit reason for having more complex parts, and they substantially add to the depth, fun, and strategy for the game, I am all for it. But merely having complexity for its own sake is just asking to revisit the worst parts of Dust; the brokenness, glitchiness, and imbalance that ruined an otherwise amazing game.


Except it's not complexity for the sake of complexity. Dual resources allow for a sort of game of finding ratios of the two for each module you use that give you the optimal use of each.

Think of it like Tetris. A single resource is like filling up a space that is 1 block wide and all you have are line pieces. of various legnths. Simple right? All you have to do is drop them

A dual resource resource system is like traditional tertris, where you have blocks of multiple dimensions that have to be fit together in an optimal configuration. More complicated, but which game is more fun?
#38 Posted: 2017.05.16 15:55  |  Edited by: DUST Fiend
Sigh

They're finally considering capacitors...and it's for dropsuits

Wtf.

One Eyed King wrote:
From reading through the thread, it seems to me that some people are equating complexity with depth. I don't think that is necessarily true. Some of the best games, video and otherwise are fairly simple, yet still have depth.

My problem with complexity for complexity's sake is that the more moving parts there are, the more various interactions there are, the more room for glitches and potential abuses that can occur.

If there is a legit reason for having more complex parts, and they substantially add to the depth, fun, and strategy for the game, I am all for it. But merely having complexity for its own sake is just asking to revisit the worst parts of Dust; the brokenness, glitchiness, and imbalance that ruined an otherwise amazing game.

They want to add real time resource management to ground based run and gun gameplay, so this argument sort of falls flat on its face lol.
Interregnum.
#39 Posted: 2017.05.16 15:59
CCP Rattati wrote:
Fox Gaden wrote:

I do like the fact that we will have something resembling a capacitor (operating like a mana bar in a fantasy game, for those not familiar with the capacitor in EVE.) Maybe there will be a fitting trade off over the resources it requires to fit, versus how much capacitor it will use to activate?


This is something we are heavily looking at, we have a few design pillars that we are working from and the top one of those is


  • Balance through Quantity, Capacitor and Cooldowns
  • Universal Equipment [vs Class-Only]
  • Universal Slots [vs Offensive/Defensive, vs High/Low, vs Assault/Logistics, vs Active/Passive]
  • At most one Resource, maybe zero Resource [vs PG/CPU]
  • Earned Equipment [vs bought, vs looted]



What this means is we can allow a lot of versatility, and balance through "availability". Power can be increased or decreased by the Cap cost/recharge rate instead of pre-battle configurations of PG/CPU.

Can I "use" it vs can I "fit" it


Combining PG/CPU into one 'thing' is good idea. As soon as I read this I found it a brilliant idea. Just do it.

Players who think that this mechanics added some 'taste' to the game are partly right, it was interesting at the begining of the game career when you acctully had to choose equipment - but at the late game, when palayer could fit everything he wanted to dropsuit(dual-tank, eq, o-weapons and all top tiers) all charm was gone.

I'm strong supporter on all ideas that show Nova as new product, that is much more improved, and new player friendly compare to old-buggy-unwanted-Dust.

Beside combining PG/CPU, do even more and add stacking penalty to fitting requirements, so that fitting another 'tanking' module cost more than previous one, so that running around with all slots being: shield extensions or armor plates is imposible/or very resorce consuming.

PS
I <3 the "Earned Equipment" pillar idea; no matter how game progression will look like at the end of developing, can we have game a type that use this pillar and look like "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" gameplay, were players start without they equipment jumping from the plane, then collecting fitting by random salvage, and running to the center of the map to spectacularly kill each other?

This is Skirmish v1.0.

In my free time I like to spend time.

Fatal Absolution
Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
#40 Posted: 2017.05.16 16:16  |  Edited by: MarasdF Loron
Joel II X wrote:
It'll certainly hurt racial diversify, that's for sure. As a tradeoff, it'll be easier to balance between classes, maybe. Reason for this having all of one class have different slot layouts, but all the same Power Core (PC) meter.

For argument's sake, let's compare Caldari and Gallente Assaults. Caldari favor shields, tanking, and ECM (jamming) for EWAR. The Gallente favor Repair, light armor tanking, and RSD (dampening-ish). Both very different, right? Now, let's give the Calass a 4/2 and Galass 2/4, but both have the same PC (for balancing). Because they have the same limitations, both should be able to do what the other one could. Dual tanking is one of these problems, but because they have different slots, the degrees at which one can do the other varies.

If they keep the CPU/PG mechanic, you can encourage players to play to their race's strengths. Give Caldari a high CPU count and low-mid PG count, while the Gallente has mid on both. Give Shield Extenders a high CPU cost with low PG costs, and give Armor Repair low-mid costs on both CPU/PG, while giving Armor Plates low CPU, but high PG.

To balance out the Matari/Amarr, just give the Minnies 3/3 with medium on both, and Amarr 1/5 with low CPU/high PG. this way the Matari can still dual tank as in eve, and the Amarr become the armor tankers like in Eve.

Anywho, you get the point: it allows for a more strategic way of making builds around these limitations. Don't fix it if it ain't broken.





Also, an idea I had some time ago was removing CPU/PG requirements from weapons to simplify the build making while lowering the amounts of CPU/PG of the suits to compensate, I'll leave that for another thread.

This is pretty much how I feel, I think too many games are going for oversimplification these days, it really takes the fun out of the games when your choices get limited not necessarily for balance but for easier to understand mechanics.

Pokey Dravon wrote:
In regards to complexity...

One resource pool is very common in games with any sort of loadout system so people will probably grasp that pretty easily. Two fitting resources is really not that much more complicated but it can be confusing if not explained properly, which is why people struggled with it in Dust.

So my question is, was the system itself flawed? Or was the way it was taught to you flawed? I'm kinda feeling it was the second.

So is it worth dropping a lot of fitting depth for the sake of a easier to digest NPE? I don't think so. I'd rather they keep the two resource system and just properly explain it this time.


I started playing Dust in open beta and I hadn't played EVE before Dust and to me the NPE seemed perfectly fine at the time, it took me around 30 mins to get a basic grasp of how things work in Dust, I really though that the tutorial stuff that was in place at the time was informative enough to get you started on your journey of loss, success and most importantly self learning.
After a week of playing I had learned most of the stuff in Dust and then through the years I kept on learning small bits and pieces from time to time and I really liked the fact that there was always something new to learn.

To me it didn't seem like the NPE was flawed, it was the players that didn't bother listening to the tutorials or properly checking different things in the game. It was a problem of CoD generation of players that need their hand being held throughout the whole game, having a tooltip for every single thing in the game.
It's fine if the game has a tootltip controls the first time you are playing the game but it goes way too far if you need the game to tell you that "Hey, did you know that loadouts are there so that you can build your own kind of suit and choose the kind of weapon that you want to use" or that "Skillpoints are there so that you can unlock new stuff with them" or "Money is there so that you can buy new stuff with it" or "Hey, did you know that those letters in the match represent objectives that you can capture" like how retarted are you if you need the game to tell you these things?
Again what is fine is telling you where to access the market, your skilltree or your loadouts.

But I guess this was kind of off topic, altough I think it really is important to take into consideration when thinking about simplification. If you make things complicated then retarted people won't understand how to play the game, but if you make the game too simple then normal people who want variety and complexity from a game will turn away from your game.


EDIT: Now if we compare NPE between Dust and Planetside 2 for example, I've played PS2 for a few hours and I haven't literally learned anything besides basic controls from that game, although I have learned enough to know that the customization in that game is way too shallow for me, which then turned me away from that game.

10 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump