Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Alliance Skill Tree

<< < (3/4) > >>

Naoura:
I dunno, I kind of like having to prove your worth with a faction to earn their stuff. With the amount of stuff they, hopefully, will include for each faction, it'll be a lot more worthwhile to earn their ships and weaponry.

Unarmed Civilian:

--- Quote from: Naoura on January 12, 2017, 11:41:27 am ---I dunno, I kind of like having to prove your worth with a faction to earn their stuff. With the amount of stuff they, hopefully, will include for each faction, it'll be a lot more worthwhile to earn their ships and weaponry.

--- End quote ---

Then nobody would ever join Mercantile. The Mercantile ship and light gun are both absolutely terrible. The ship is so bad that it could be put into Skirmish as-is and still be extremely underwhelming.



As for tech tree nonsense, any buffs should be minor or merely convenience. For example: Fail safe lasts 2 more seconds, Chemical spray removes 1 more stack and lasts 3 more seconds, buff hammer buffs last 10% longer, stamina regenerates 10% faster, engines can take 10% damage without losing effectiveness, guns can never fall below 20% efficiency from damage, and general things that smooth out the experience. They should generally avoid doing things that disrupt repair cycles or make existing optimal repair cycles non-optimal.

They should not directly affect damage output, repair capabilities, or ship maneuverability so that newer players are not discouraged because they perceive that even if they play perfectly, their work will be sub-optimal. For someone who is already playing perfectly, the buffs should make little difference from not having them and merely alleviate annoyances (like maintaining chem sprays on larger Alliance ships) and make the play experience smoother.

BlackenedPies:
A buff based skill tree wouldn't necessarily hurt the game. Even a 20% difference between players (repair, dmg etc.) could work with a balanced difficulty, and of course the upgrades would need to be interesting

In Killing Floor for example, most upgrades are straight buffs, with some perks mixed in. A new player, no matter their skill, can't win on the harder difficulties. Occasionally you'll see low levels in hard difficulties, but it's not a problem, and players like to win so they tend to stay in their difficulty range

I don't know how the difficulty is now, but the last time I played Alliance (months ago), I beat all game modes on the highest difficulty in a gat mortar squid with all AI, often without an ally. I doubt it would work with any other ship, and that's the point of PvE. Sure you can beat hard with X, but can you do it with Y and Z?

Richard LeMoon:
IF there was a tech tree, and IF it buffed tools, those buffs would ONLY be able to be used in the appropriate difficulty. No buffs in Novice, Stage 1 buff in Normal, Stage 2 in Hard, Stage 3 in Hell. Otherwise, you end up with people nuking novice for points (which they do now as it is).

But then you have the issue of novices not being able to join higher difficulties, which, frankly, they must do based on the math of match times and open lobbies. By the way, it is NOT Match Maker's fault it does a terrible job of making matches, nor is it lower player count. It is our fault. More on that another day.

BlackenedPies:
I assumed Hell difficulty awards points/XP multiple that of novice, and that the point system is arbitrary. If the ideal way to play is at low difficulty, on the best ship, then the game is pointless in my view

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page