What does "significance of gear" mean?

[Arsenic_Touch]

You're making no sense.

<snip>

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Hardly. The economy is irrelevant. They can add progression without making it vertical. They've already said they're revamping how the weapon skills are.

The current level of progression is static, there is no change amongst ego levels except it actually makes gun weaker for a time with less mod slots or lack of nano effect. This is a separate point from the rest of my post.

This current static system does not work, especially when it doesn't have stat priority and the majority of weapons are obsolete or have terrible stat rolls.

Again, separate point.

The slight change in guns based on rarity present in the charge blades + the slight change in guns purchased at rep vendors is a step in the right direction and they need to expand on the concept. They can do this along with the weapon skill revamp they have in mind without breaking the game.

What I said is they need to expand on the current system they have already employed. IE, rep weapons doing slightly more damage and being more lucrative over found weapons. Giving rep a purpose. While with charge blades, there's a slight change in stats between rarity making a legendary, actually legendary. They need to expand this across all guns and combine it with stat priority and synergy priority. Now throw that in with their weapon skill revamp they have planned they said it would be "familiar" and they'd have a system that is much better than what we currently have.

When I was referring to vertical progression, I was referring to the one in which weapons get stronger based on ego level (which by the way they had in the alpha version of the game, it did not break anything and the damage difference was only slight, it was removed without word and replaced with the current broken system we have)

That is what I'm lobbying for.

[Xaearth]

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Bah. You aren't supposed to have that many different arguments in the same post without clearly differentiating them, at least not at 1:30 in the morning. Now I need caffeine.

Hardly. The economy is irrelevant. They can add progression without making it vertical. They've already said they're revamping how the weapon skills are.

The current level of progression is static, there is no change amongst ego levels except it actually makes gun weaker for a time with less mod slots or lack of nano effect. This is a separate point from the rest of my post.

The current level of progression may be static, but it is still there. The only way to "add progression" is to add it in another direction (implying vertical). If you had said "change/tweak/improve the current progression", we'd be having a different discussion right now.

This current static system does not work, especially when it doesn't have stat priority and the majority of weapons are obsolete or have terrible stat rolls.

Again, separate point.

No arguments there, with the emphasis on it "does not work" being because the devs were pretty lazy in their implementation of it.

The slight change in guns based on rarity present in the charge blades + the slight change in guns purchased at rep vendors is a step in the right direction and they need to expand on the concept. They can do this along with the weapon skill revamp they have in mind without breaking the game.

What I said is they need to expand on the current system they have already employed. IE, rep weapons doing slightly more damage and being more lucrative over found weapons. Giving rep a purpose. While with charge blades, there's a slight change in stats between rarity making a legendary, actually legendary. They need to expand this across all guns and combine it with stat priority and synergy priority. Now throw that in with their weapon skill revamp they have planned they said it would be "familiar" and they'd have a system that is much better than what we currently have.

When I was referring to vertical progression, I was referring to the one in which weapons get stronger based on ego level (which by the way they had in the alpha version of the game, it did not break anything and the damage difference was only slight, it was removed without word and replaced with the current broken system we have)

That is what I'm lobbying for.

I don't have a problem with rep weapons being slightly stronger, they're untradeable and everyone has access to them (in time) after all.

But for all weapons to get stronger based on either EGO level (or rarity), what purpose does that serve?

There is no need for it, and it would only cause either encounters to become easier at high EGO/rarity (making an arguably easy game easier) or cause the devs to make those encounters more difficult artificially (hp-wise, generally speaking) which just defeats the purpose of the damage increase to begin with while adding an unnecessary penalty for lower EGO/rarity players.

[MacDeath]

IMO, the almost no significance to gear is quite good for a game focused on PvP and quite bad for a game focused on PvE. Defiance needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. IMO, too much focus on gear progression will drive away PvP focused players. Not enough focus on gear will (and already has) drive away the PvE focused players.

It's EXTREMELY rare to get this balanced 'just right'. So... Why bother? Let us use gear progression for the PvE aspects of the game and ASSIGN gear when people sign up for PvP. Sure, let the PvPers choose which type of weapon they wish to use while in PvP but put no stats on that gear. Every PvP shotgun has the same abilities, every PvP SAW is the same, etc.

PvP should be 100% based on player skill. PvE should be based on character progression AND player skill.

[Arsenic_Touch]

IMO, the almost no significance to gear is quite good for a game focused on PvP and quite bad for a game focused on PvE. Defiance needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. IMO, too much focus on gear progression will drive away PvP focused players. Not enough focus on gear will (and already has) drive away the PvE focused players.

It's EXTREMELY rare to get this balanced 'just right'. So... Why bother? Let us use gear progression for the PvE aspects of the game and ASSIGN gear when people sign up for PvP. Sure, let the PvPers choose which type of weapon they wish to use while in PvP but put no stats on that gear. Every PvP shotgun has the same abilities, every PvP SAW is the same, etc.

PvP should be 100% based on player skill. PvE should be based on character progression AND player skill.

Guild wars 2 does this well.

[Xaearth]

IMO, the almost no significance to gear is quite good for a game focused on PvP and quite bad for a game focused on PvE. Defiance needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. IMO, too much focus on gear progression will drive away PvP focused players. Not enough focus on gear will (and already has) drive away the PvE focused players.

It's EXTREMELY rare to get this balanced 'just right'. So... Why bother? Let us use gear progression for the PvE aspects of the game and ASSIGN gear when people sign up for PvP. Sure, let the PvPers choose which type of weapon they wish to use while in PvP but put no stats on that gear. Every PvP shotgun has the same abilities, every PvP SAW is the same, etc.

PvP should be 100% based on player skill. PvE should be based on character progression AND player skill.

I disagree.

The horizontal progression introduces an entirely new dynamic to PvE - the idea that you can play and group with anyone no matter their level or time spent in the game.

The problem is grouping means so little in this game that it is rarely considered a bonus.

Guild wars 2 does this well.

GW2 also de-levels players, so that the scaling is (relatively/somewhat) consistent.

[MacDeath]

Guild wars 2 does this well.

The Secret World does it too. It's too bad the PvP there is so meaningless, but while in PvP you get generic gear.

[Arsenic_Touch]

There is no need for it, and it would only cause either encounters to become easier at high EGO/rarity (making an arguably easy game easier) or cause the devs to make those encounters more difficult artificially (hp-wise, generally speaking) which just defeats the purpose of the damage increase to begin with while adding an unnecessary penalty for lower EGO/rarity players.

They already make encounters more difficult artificially with the current scaling system which is capped at a certain point where all it does is inflate the health. It honestly wouldn't make any difference in the current game, and would actually give players something to strive for.

[Xaearth]

They already make encounters more difficult artificially with the current scaling system which is capped at a certain point where all it does is inflate the health. It honestly wouldn't make any difference in the current game, and would actually give players something to strive for.

It would make a difference in the current game.

Notice that arkfalls are specifically designed to take a certain amount of time. The only ones that you can really brute-force through quickly (barring bugs) - the wave minor arkfalls - get bonus waves specifically to offset the speed at which the waves are completed. This is obviously done to give people ample time to notice and reach the arkfall.

If you speed up the rate at which people are downing arkfalls, it's safe to assume that the devs would adjust the amount of time it takes to complete those arkfalls to make sure people have a chance to participate.

Now, unless you suppose the devs are going to change the scaling system to account for specific EGO levels and loadouts of each player, that means the devs are going to have to scale the hp up across the board, regardless of whether or not the players capable of downing the arkfall faster are present or not.

Long story short, the enemy encounters would get balanced to the point that it's expected a certain percentage (or even all) of the players present have the better progression weapons, so in the best case scenario you notice little to no change, but in the worst case scenario, everything drags out longer than necessary.

And that's ignoring the can-of-worms that is "enemies that scale up and nobody shoots at because they're pointless bullet sponges that aren't related to the current objective".

[Lollie]

The Secret World does it too. It's too bad the PvP there is so meaningless, but while in PvP you get generic gear.

You do not use generic weapons and talismans in The Secret World pvp, and that's what gear is it that game. Clothing is not gear in that game, that's the only "generic" anything in pvp there.

Someone in 10.5 purple raid gear will destroy someone in 1-10 gear.

[Indra Echo]

Under the "inventory" paragraph: http://community.defiance.com/en/201...e-game-update/



What does this mean? As a shooter the game is light on RPG elements; gear is much more significant than EGO. And that's fine. One of the best things this game has going for it is that there are literally none of the stereotypical bull **** barriers between newbs and vets that a traditional RPG has.

I kind of figured the charged blades were a harbinger of bad design choices as the rarity dictates the damage. No other weapon is like that. At first I attributed this choice to the lack of attached weapon skills but the above comment worries me. Then combine that with all starting, pre-order, and Ark Hunter Rewards weapons being nerfed.

Why was this gulf between newer and older characters even opened to begin with? Why force that into the game now?

We're not going to be moving down the path towards traditional RPG power scaling are we? Because, to be frank, that sucks and is just lazy game design. It's archaic. It would make me stop playing this game. It's fine that some people like it but I absolutely abhor it. It's the primary contributing factor to my absolute love of the idea of MMOs but my complete disdain for their execution thus far. I just can't enjoy games like that anymore.

Someone please reassure me that this is not what's implied by comments mentioning the significance of gear.

What I take this to mean is that rather than trying to make the inventory UI easier to use and all that, they're going to do something else.

I think there should have been internal character progressions (some that would be a choice between weapon types and abilities) that influenced the power of weapons at the start if there were to be any, but that it should always have been separated as to PvP and PvE. Sure there is that sort of now, but it never seems to affect things that much. So, weapons should have also had a range from the not so great to the really good to the super good, but even within a class and more affected by your character and some traits.

I don't so much mind what we have now as I do mind that they have never tried to stream line it by making it more easily accessible and viewable. It's one long list of stuff. What they've needed are categories of weapon types and the mods that go with them.

What it appears they're going to try to do, is just consolidate our stuff so we don't need as much in our inventories. Taken along with comments about grenades cluttering up our inventory (which leads me to believe they'll no longer be inventory items--where they'll be I don't know), and I think it's possible to speculate--but it still would be speculation.

Consider that right now I can have at least 4 SAWs if you go along with just nanos. Synergies can mean more. Bonus rolls might mean more. So, just take nanos. What if their intent is to use their new grenade model to "fix" this. What if your ammo will be more like the ammo in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer (the ammo has the bonus effects AND it is a consumable item-which means to try and get more of it, you either have to grind for credits or use real money and get boxes in the store).

Going from my example of 4 weapons of the same type just to get different nanos, your inventory could then be cut by 75%--you don't need 4 anymore because the nano is on the bullet. And just like grenades, you will have a few ways to get more--ammo boxes of plain ammo, random drops you hope will be ammo and you hope will have a nano attached, smart loot drops of ammo that will have A nano of some type, and re-supply stacks of specific nano ammo at vendors (that you can buy with scrip or bits).

I'm not saying this will happen, but that it could happen. It also would be a huge mistake. But I do think some of the things being considered are things they see in other games. It's just that they're often the things I personally hate in other games.

The way I want to play is in being able to control somewhat what I have at hand. I don't mind running out of ammo because there are ammo boxes but as it is now, I can increase my chances of never running out. I make a choice to use perks for that instead of maybe some damage or protection perks (risk/reward). Same with grenades. In fact, my loadouts often revolve around making sure I have ammo and grenades.

That means I'm basically freed up to not spend time worrying too much about ammo and grenades-but I am vulnerable and somewhat weaker. My trade off. I don't think forcing players to have to constantly be concerned about re-supplying items (and maybe including HP and shields are to come), when this is not how it's been played, is change to embrace.

The issue with the inventory is not that we have too many items, but that we have too many items that don't have coordinating parts-such as scavenger sniper rifles--we have a lot of the mods, where are the guns. And that the game offers us no way to alter what we have, such as by crafting. So, we may keep 5 versions of one weapon because we happen to like the nano on one better, but we like the bonuses on the others better.

I don't want this game to trade time spent looking in our inventories with time spent getting back to vendors and grinding and buying consumables from vendors (that also run out while we're grinding). But part of me thinks this is the direction they're headed. And the idea is that we won't want to grind and so we'll pay. But I won't. I wouldn't for Mass Effect 3 MP and I won't for this one.