Again, what i'm suggestion is not decay, it's not even not a traditional progression system. It's consumables integrated into it this providing temporary extra power which need to be crafted and can only be accessed at certain levels.
It's permanent power (little, since this was not going to be a vertical progression system, which you all seem to defend too strongly) it's temporary vertical progression at a high cos in a diagonal progression system.
People really seem to love their vertical progression, even compromises are shot down like they were the spawn of satan.
They're like potions people. Potions. No one is going to take away your toys.
It's permanent power (little, since this was not going to be a vertical progression system, which you all seem to defend too strongly) it's temporary vertical progression at a high cos in a diagonal progression system.
People really seem to love their vertical progression, even compromises are shot down like they were the spawn of satan.
They're like potions people. Potions. No one is going to take away your toys.
Ok. So you acknowledge that power creep can exist even if there is a limit on the vertical power increase.
There is a reason I'm asking questions instead of just providing answers.
For what it's worth, one solution is already part of the discussion. Scaling. Another solution would be dynamic encounters that match to your level, which could be defined as a different form of scaling.
If you start out at level 1, then have to earn the power of level 10 before you can face level 10 enemies, doesn't that alone make the vertical progression relevant?
Or does that become all for nothing simply because when you go back to level one, scaling kicks in and you don't get to have god mode? Which, I believe you said god mode gets boring really fast.
I'm not debating your idea. Right now I'm just trying to get some clarity of terms.
There is a reason I'm asking questions instead of just providing answers.
For what it's worth, one solution is already part of the discussion. Scaling. Another solution would be dynamic encounters that match to your level, which could be defined as a different form of scaling.
If you start out at level 1, then have to earn the power of level 10 before you can face level 10 enemies, doesn't that alone make the vertical progression relevant?
Or does that become all for nothing simply because when you go back to level one, scaling kicks in and you don't get to have god mode? Which, I believe you said god mode gets boring really fast.
I'm not debating your idea. Right now I'm just trying to get some clarity of terms.
Likes:
Destination
I pointed out that progression doesn't need to be infinite for there to be power creep. I didn't say there will always be some form of power creep.
That's a form of vertical progression. Do you consider vertical progression and power creep the same thing?
The definition I use-
The "Why" is motivation: The player is motivated to level up so they can succeed in areas they currently cannot survive in as a lower level. The fact that scaling would mean going back to lower level's can still offer challenge and reward, does not necessarily change the feeling of accomplishment from that initial climb.
You said both. You said "people like to feel badass" and you said "feeling like a god tends to get boring really fast" as well as "I can always go back to lower areas and face stomp lower baddies but it's just god mode."
So then if a scaling system allowed the player to feel badass in lower levels, but never allowed them to get full god mode, isnt that achieving one of the goals you set?
Diagonal progression is a combination of both vertical and horizontal growth. I support that as well. Remember, I'm not championing some sort of infinite vertical growth. I'm only trying to clarify some terms, cause and effect.
That's a form of vertical progression. Do you consider vertical progression and power creep the same thing?
The definition I use-
The "Why" is motivation: The player is motivated to level up so they can succeed in areas they currently cannot survive in as a lower level. The fact that scaling would mean going back to lower level's can still offer challenge and reward, does not necessarily change the feeling of accomplishment from that initial climb.
You said both. You said "people like to feel badass" and you said "feeling like a god tends to get boring really fast" as well as "I can always go back to lower areas and face stomp lower baddies but it's just god mode."
So then if a scaling system allowed the player to feel badass in lower levels, but never allowed them to get full god mode, isnt that achieving one of the goals you set?
Diagonal progression is a combination of both vertical and horizontal growth. I support that as well. Remember, I'm not championing some sort of infinite vertical growth. I'm only trying to clarify some terms, cause and effect.
Look, so far it's the best i can come up with. A progression system similar to a more traditional progression system with a low powercurve based on HP and DMG. Personally i felt that the old 2.x powercurve of the old FF was already too much but where you improve your stats depends on your particular class. Assaults get more mobile, tanks get more durable, engineers get more toys to play with. The vertical progression would be consumable based, similar to how potions work but with a gem system. and way cooler.
Going in "overdrive". It's like going super sayian.
They can be refueled but the more you use them, the faster they break. Break them and you have to replace them. It solves both the need for going "god-mode", if only temporary and feeds the economy.
It may be the dumbest idea ever but so far it's the best i can come up with. Criticize it all you want.
To me it seems a lot of you support permanent vertical progression. Good luck with that.
Going in "overdrive". It's like going super sayian.
They can be refueled but the more you use them, the faster they break. Break them and you have to replace them. It solves both the need for going "god-mode", if only temporary and feeds the economy.
It may be the dumbest idea ever but so far it's the best i can come up with. Criticize it all you want.
To me it seems a lot of you support permanent vertical progression. Good luck with that.
Last edited:
Pretty much.
Power creep doesn't have to be permanent. Diminishing returns. If leveling up your power costs you more ig money, there will be a point where you'll just go f*ck it. It's like tinkering. Most stopped at a certain point. Only the elite went full out. Now imagine if tinkering had decay. Not only would less people be motivated to max it out, the income for the economy from those "whales" would be incredible. Those resources would be priceless. The commoner willing to mine them would get rich, the richer they got the more money they'd spend on those consumables.
Power creep doesn't have to be permanent. Diminishing returns. If leveling up your power costs you more ig money, there will be a point where you'll just go f*ck it. It's like tinkering. Most stopped at a certain point. Only the elite went full out. Now imagine if tinkering had decay. Not only would less people be motivated to max it out, the income for the economy from those "whales" would be incredible. Those resources would be priceless. The commoner willing to mine them would get rich, the richer they got the more money they'd spend on those consumables.
Snowflake, please hear me. I'm not criticizing your idea, I like your idea. I never said it was bad, I said it was good. I don't know what else I can say on that front.
My last several posts were not attempts to argue against your idea, in fact they weren't even discussing your idea at all. I'm only trying to clarify general terms, cause and effect. In response to this post. If we are going to talk about things like "power creep" and "good economies" It's best to know exactly what means what, and what does what. Knowing those things offers clarity and options. It's best to know what options are available to solve certain problems, regardless of which one you go with in the end.
I was using the calling in of vehicles as an example of the various costs and consumables involved in a larger battlefield. I said it was similar to your idea, I did not suggest that was the whole system we intend to use.
Yes. As I have said many times, I like his temporary buff idea. I think it can come across well in many forms.
That said, there has been some confusion and misuse of certain terms, cause and effect that I was hoping to correct.
My last several posts were not attempts to argue against your idea, in fact they weren't even discussing your idea at all. I'm only trying to clarify general terms, cause and effect. In response to this post. If we are going to talk about things like "power creep" and "good economies" It's best to know exactly what means what, and what does what. Knowing those things offers clarity and options. It's best to know what options are available to solve certain problems, regardless of which one you go with in the end.
I was using the calling in of vehicles as an example of the various costs and consumables involved in a larger battlefield. I said it was similar to your idea, I did not suggest that was the whole system we intend to use.
Yes. As I have said many times, I like his temporary buff idea. I think it can come across well in many forms.
That said, there has been some confusion and misuse of certain terms, cause and effect that I was hoping to correct.
No, it's not even close to the stupidest idea out there because it's a good idea. And Yes I understand it.
My first response to you when you presented the idea was-
I only then went on to expand on the many ways where such a system might exist on some form.
It's all good my friend.
My first response to you when you presented the idea was-
I only then went on to expand on the many ways where such a system might exist on some form.
It's all good my friend.
Likes:
Mahdi
All i'm saying Ronyn. Consumables are good for the economy. This is why i see them as both a solution to powercreep and a healthy economy. You're allowed to disagree with that, but i'm not giving up on my position.
If the idea is properly implemented, along with diminishing returns. Meaning the more powerful the consumable, the more expensive. It could work imo.
If you disagree with this, than we just have to agree to disagree.
(again, i don't easily back down :3)
If the idea is properly implemented, along with diminishing returns. Meaning the more powerful the consumable, the more expensive. It could work imo.
If you disagree with this, than we just have to agree to disagree.
(again, i don't easily back down :3)
You don't need to "back down". If you only look closer to what I have said, we arent exactly on different sides of the issue as it may seem to some.
Yes. There are way's to design a system in which consumables are good for the economy as well as playing a part in staving off power creep. Your idea is one such system. I never disagreed with that. That's why I said it has merit from the very beginning.
What I said was, consumables do not inherently solve or impede power creep, nor could they solve the issue all by themselves, as the rest of the system needs to be built to avoid power creep as well. That is why there are games where all gear is consumable yet power creep is still a problem. Likewise, consumables are not the only possible solution to power creep, which is why there are games with few to no consumables, yet have minimal power creep. The reason it's not a matter of "agreeing to disagree" is because games that prove these points do, in fact, already exist.
Yes. There are way's to design a system in which consumables are good for the economy as well as playing a part in staving off power creep. Your idea is one such system. I never disagreed with that. That's why I said it has merit from the very beginning.
What I said was, consumables do not inherently solve or impede power creep, nor could they solve the issue all by themselves, as the rest of the system needs to be built to avoid power creep as well. That is why there are games where all gear is consumable yet power creep is still a problem. Likewise, consumables are not the only possible solution to power creep, which is why there are games with few to no consumables, yet have minimal power creep. The reason it's not a matter of "agreeing to disagree" is because games that prove these points do, in fact, already exist.
Sorry for my moodiness and grouchiness. On a lot of painkillers and tranquilizers. I honestly have trouble reading at the time.
Still stand by everything i wrote though. A permanent low power-curve progression system, mostly based on other stats than DMG and HP (so speed, cooldowns, general awesomeness) in combination with a temporariy vertical progression system based on gems would be the way to go imo. It's cheap, it's cool and the kids would love it.
Still stand by everything i wrote though. A permanent low power-curve progression system, mostly based on other stats than DMG and HP (so speed, cooldowns, general awesomeness) in combination with a temporariy vertical progression system based on gems would be the way to go imo. It's cheap, it's cool and the kids would love it.
So the idea is this!?:
I start with a basic weapon, I go to farm some resources and craft 2 basic batteries that I can attach to my weapon so the munition can stun enemies briefly meanwhile the batteries are not depleted, doing so I can risk further to try to find better resources to improve the number of batteries (with a limit about how much the weapon can have attached) or to improve the duration of them (hence means to find better quality resources, you end trying to risk a little more every time). When the batteries run out of energy you are back to square 1 but now with a full bag of resources, it's up to you to upgrade your weapon and attach the old batteries you have or to improve the batteries instead if you like your weapon as it's.
On the other side with the spare resources you didnt use to upgrade items you can craft temporal 1 use chips to use in your frame to overclock the O.S., be it reforcing the shields, calling for extra energy supply to use when shield is critical to raise the movility, etc.
Am I wrong?? because I like what I've read here in the last couple pages.
I start with a basic weapon, I go to farm some resources and craft 2 basic batteries that I can attach to my weapon so the munition can stun enemies briefly meanwhile the batteries are not depleted, doing so I can risk further to try to find better resources to improve the number of batteries (with a limit about how much the weapon can have attached) or to improve the duration of them (hence means to find better quality resources, you end trying to risk a little more every time). When the batteries run out of energy you are back to square 1 but now with a full bag of resources, it's up to you to upgrade your weapon and attach the old batteries you have or to improve the batteries instead if you like your weapon as it's.
On the other side with the spare resources you didnt use to upgrade items you can craft temporal 1 use chips to use in your frame to overclock the O.S., be it reforcing the shields, calling for extra energy supply to use when shield is critical to raise the movility, etc.
Am I wrong?? because I like what I've read here in the last couple pages.
Likes:
Wraithbane and Sn0wfIak3
Yeah, pretty much. You never "break down" like you did in 0.7.You'll never go. "AH SHIT, MY GEAR BROKE". It's more like. "Damn, i lost my super powers for a while."
That was the thing about 0.7. Your gear broke, you were F.
That was the thing about 0.7. Your gear broke, you were F.
Likes:
Earth_Soldier
so..... SUMMARY:
CRAFT ABLE CONSUMABLE SAIYAN STEROID POWER BATTERIES. THAT TURNS YOUR FRAME INTO A NUKLEAR BLASTING RAGING BONER. WITH LIMITED USE. OR TILL IT GOES. BOOM!
OVERALL A GOOD IDEA
BUT. THE QUESTION IS. HOW CAN IT BE IMPLEMENTED. INTO EM.8ER?
AND THAT DAMN QUESTION IS WAAAAAAY TOO EARLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
<F*CKING HEADACHEPLOSION>
did I got that all right? ^^
CRAFT ABLE CONSUMABLE SAIYAN STEROID POWER BATTERIES. THAT TURNS YOUR FRAME INTO A NUKLEAR BLASTING RAGING BONER. WITH LIMITED USE. OR TILL IT GOES. BOOM!
OVERALL A GOOD IDEA
BUT. THE QUESTION IS. HOW CAN IT BE IMPLEMENTED. INTO EM.8ER?
AND THAT DAMN QUESTION IS WAAAAAAY TOO EARLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
<F*CKING HEADACHEPLOSION>
did I got that all right? ^^
Likes:
Mahdi and Sn0wfIak3