I also mentioned abilities locked by sections of the skill tree, what i meant by this was for example a Full DPS character would not have access to the higher strength abilities that a character going full Tanky-Support would have. For example, say we are given 100 points to invest how we like into a tree, we could limit abilities being used in certain combinations by how many points are spent in certain sections of the skill tree in such a way that a Tanky-Support character can posses something like a shield that heals them for a portion of the damage they take, this should not (and rightly so) be accessible to a player who maximizes for DPS. This is where the idea of Zone-locking abilities comes into play, with investment into certain sections of the tree you will gain access to abilities to equip to the frame as a result of your intended playstyle that is dictated by your skill investment.
Let me refer y'all to a previous thread about this topic.
https://forums.emberthegame.com/threads/remember-all-the-frames-we-couldve-had.48/
https://forums.emberthegame.com/threads/remember-all-the-frames-we-couldve-had.48/
I just want to point out that eventually everything will be unlocked.
This is because unless we are expected to make a ton of alt characters then we are looking at something like Firefall. You got 1 character, many loadouts. (this also makes it look less like we are trying to copy Path of Exile heh)
Which is why I referred to it as a research tree. Since it will probably be that players need to invest resources into research to unlock something to be able to craft it.
This can also mean that its not a circle, but a linear list. Could have it such that the advanced modules that run the line require meeting point research from both sections. Example: Multi-Charge module is something that could be highly useful to Mobility, Utility, and Offense requiring invested research in those research tree sections to unlock. More for Primary Sections, less for Sub Sections.
This is because unless we are expected to make a ton of alt characters then we are looking at something like Firefall. You got 1 character, many loadouts. (this also makes it look less like we are trying to copy Path of Exile heh)
Which is why I referred to it as a research tree. Since it will probably be that players need to invest resources into research to unlock something to be able to craft it.
This can also mean that its not a circle, but a linear list. Could have it such that the advanced modules that run the line require meeting point research from both sections. Example: Multi-Charge module is something that could be highly useful to Mobility, Utility, and Offense requiring invested research in those research tree sections to unlock. More for Primary Sections, less for Sub Sections.
Likes:
Wyntyr
Good point, I'm glad someone brought it up. My recommendation would be that the character has a maximum amount of points to spend...similar to Payday 2...you can only get to a certain point. To be a bit better you have to reset the character. The key is what to give for the reset. i would say perhaps one point to use in the web per reset. Something like that. With that in mind, no character would be able to max the skill web with the base amount of points that you can earn. You would have to reset to get more skills than that max. Just an idea...
Why should you need a reset item, when your ability to equip modded abilities/gear can be covered by a unified constraint system?
Modules could be set up so that they alter the constraint needs of a piece of gear or ability. Thus you need to balance everything out. The more powerful you make something, the more demanding it is on your setup.
This way a person can have freedom to change their build to suit their mood, without having to go through this obnoxious system of resetting everything. Or making sure they got enough of the reset item if they feel like trying something new. While at the same time making sure that they cannot just equip a full set of super modded gear and abilities. This also means they do not need to feel like they should just go make a new character because it is less of a hassle.
Modules could be set up so that they alter the constraint needs of a piece of gear or ability. Thus you need to balance everything out. The more powerful you make something, the more demanding it is on your setup.
This way a person can have freedom to change their build to suit their mood, without having to go through this obnoxious system of resetting everything. Or making sure they got enough of the reset item if they feel like trying something new. While at the same time making sure that they cannot just equip a full set of super modded gear and abilities. This also means they do not need to feel like they should just go make a new character because it is less of a hassle.
Likes:
Wyntyr
No reset for items or gear...well I actually advocate that modifications to gear wear out over game time so I guess that would be a reset of sorts for items/gear. But on this thread...the reset would be optional and the reason to do so is twofold. First it allows for a longtime player to continue advancing their single character's skill set while at the same time not allowing for someone to gain everything in the skill web except over a lengthy period of game time. Hmmm...perhaps one could just make the skills in the web more costly than 1 point (say 2 points, then 3, 4, etc.) after each 50-100 points spent in the web? All the #'s I'm using are for examples...not for any true system. PoE is a one point for one skill dot in their web so that's what I'm going off of atm. Now in the web you can do one of two starting points. One in the center and go out from there...or...actually have role positions (tank/dps/medic/mechanic/etc) spread through out the web. Also, if using the reset option, upon the 1st reset you can start the web from the center position instead of from one of the role locations.
TL;DR - I think the omniframe idea is great, and can support all the roles players want without having classes.
This is the key.
You can even use, and expand upon, the resource concepts I remember from the FF beta to make the customization choices. The concept of having different resource pools (ie: Power, Weight, CPU). When configuring your frame you are limited by what your frame is able to handle. You can then be able to unlock the ability to adjust those pools in different ways. Like add CPU with the cost of consuming more power, or be lighter at the cost of Power and CPU. Basically you can then design and balance a frame based on what you want. The more extreme you go into a particular direction, the more you have to sacrifice from the other pools.
Then the balancing comes from what weapons, abilities, armor, etc. cost in resources. Want a fast frame with a more poweful weapon, you are going to have to heavily sacrifice CPU and armor so you won't have poweful abilities or HP. You want armor? You will have to sacrifice on the power plant and or CPU, so you will have to sacrifice a powerful weapon or big abilites. You want powerful abilities? You will need to sacrifice armo and/or your weapon. The list goes on and on. It is up to the player to build a frame whose abilities synergize well, or not if that is what they feel is fun.
The initial omniframe can be very flexible and offer a lot of choices to the player while being easier to produce due to reduced art and rendering. Then down the road more specialized frames can be introduced. These don't need to be upgrades, just more specialized and less flexible. They will need more skill to be used to full effectiveness. I would like to see this done without the omniframe loosing its place in endgame content.
This is the key.
You can even use, and expand upon, the resource concepts I remember from the FF beta to make the customization choices. The concept of having different resource pools (ie: Power, Weight, CPU). When configuring your frame you are limited by what your frame is able to handle. You can then be able to unlock the ability to adjust those pools in different ways. Like add CPU with the cost of consuming more power, or be lighter at the cost of Power and CPU. Basically you can then design and balance a frame based on what you want. The more extreme you go into a particular direction, the more you have to sacrifice from the other pools.
Then the balancing comes from what weapons, abilities, armor, etc. cost in resources. Want a fast frame with a more poweful weapon, you are going to have to heavily sacrifice CPU and armor so you won't have poweful abilities or HP. You want armor? You will have to sacrifice on the power plant and or CPU, so you will have to sacrifice a powerful weapon or big abilites. You want powerful abilities? You will need to sacrifice armo and/or your weapon. The list goes on and on. It is up to the player to build a frame whose abilities synergize well, or not if that is what they feel is fun.
The initial omniframe can be very flexible and offer a lot of choices to the player while being easier to produce due to reduced art and rendering. Then down the road more specialized frames can be introduced. These don't need to be upgrades, just more specialized and less flexible. They will need more skill to be used to full effectiveness. I would like to see this done without the omniframe loosing its place in endgame content.
Games like path of exile is the initial learning curve, even without beginner guides once you've done the trial and error eyou can literally breeze through them blind folded, I can say this: Firefall actually had a decent frame system using mobile garages and the like at one point to field swap frames, it had its disadvantages as well, I think a singular modular frame wouldn't be bad if it could be fitted for repairs combat support scouting etc, each set type being mutally exclusive meaning you can't surround yourself in turrets while wielding a sniper rifle etc, or at least having major disadvantages for scouts/snipers pushing heavy armor like preventing them from obtaining good vantage points, or reducing a medics ability to assist their team in rapid response style.
There is only one way a classless system can exist: every choice is a sidegrade. In other words, every time you swap out something from the "standard issue" build, you lose something meaningful. Nothing is an upgrade; everything is a tradeoff. The reason "jack of all trades" builds are feared in classless systems is because they're not truly jacks; they're kings of all trades, sometimes even aces. This says to me that the trades made to customize a build are not significant enough to warrant any real grief over their loss.
I'll be first to admit I have a habit of trying to "do it all" in games with freeform character building. I mainly do it because I don't like getting left out of content for which I'm not hyper-specialized, but I also do it as a stress test on games' character engines and general design quality. 30 years of gaming can turn people into critics, after all...
Here's my general test: If my generalist is just good enough at everything that I can accomplish what I want by playing better than the specialists and making better use of my wider array of options, I think that's a good thing. It allows us "renaissance men" to attempt everything, albeit at a greater challenge level than any specialist would have against each particular challenge. If I can do everything so easily that I don't have to try any harder than a specialist, then specialists ARE obsolete and there's an issue. On the other hand, if my generalist can't even ATTEMPT a specialized task without speccing for it (say, because of stackable RNG odds, sheer damage immunities or minimum jump jet distance or something gated like that) then I'm disappointed, because it becomes "specialize or don't play this content." If you HAVE to specialize to play, then you've eliminted the point of giving players the choice of specialization. Choice+consequence=gameplay. False choice+exclusion=false gameplay.
It's very tricky ground to tread but a classless game IS very possible. It just takes a comprehensive approach to game design to avoid the pitfalls we fall into again and again.
I'll be first to admit I have a habit of trying to "do it all" in games with freeform character building. I mainly do it because I don't like getting left out of content for which I'm not hyper-specialized, but I also do it as a stress test on games' character engines and general design quality. 30 years of gaming can turn people into critics, after all...
Here's my general test: If my generalist is just good enough at everything that I can accomplish what I want by playing better than the specialists and making better use of my wider array of options, I think that's a good thing. It allows us "renaissance men" to attempt everything, albeit at a greater challenge level than any specialist would have against each particular challenge. If I can do everything so easily that I don't have to try any harder than a specialist, then specialists ARE obsolete and there's an issue. On the other hand, if my generalist can't even ATTEMPT a specialized task without speccing for it (say, because of stackable RNG odds, sheer damage immunities or minimum jump jet distance or something gated like that) then I'm disappointed, because it becomes "specialize or don't play this content." If you HAVE to specialize to play, then you've eliminted the point of giving players the choice of specialization. Choice+consequence=gameplay. False choice+exclusion=false gameplay.
It's very tricky ground to tread but a classless game IS very possible. It just takes a comprehensive approach to game design to avoid the pitfalls we fall into again and again.
Likes:
EvilKitten
In a truly horizontal environment there is no most powerful weapon, there are weapons that fill different niches. AOE, rate of fire, effective range, base damage, magazine size: each of these differ from weapon to weapon, and when moving in a squad you'd need to decide if any of those niches need to be filled. Do you need someone with an AOE weapon, such as explosives? How about someone with a long-range solution, for removing key targets from packs of enemies. Is your group comfortable attacking content with the weapons they have?
Same for abilities, they should all be around the same power (for offensive/defensive), but differ in how they apply offensive and defensive strategies. You could allow additional areas of customization for each ability too. For example, exchange the default High Explosives charge in Bombs Away for a Napalm charge. You do less damage up-front, but create a patch of burning ground that can debuff enemies.
Horizontally balanced games foster great freedom of choice, and I think Ember could be the one to do it given how much time we have to think about the systems. And, to what you said Daynen, it will be freedom of choice. There shouldn't be any impassable terrain, or enemies with tiny weakpoints only snipers could hit (aside from perhaps a raidboss, something like that should be fair to expect some level of specialization within the group of 20-40 players attempting it).
Any choice you make is one of preference, everything is viable. If you want to slot napalm into your four favorite explosive abilities in the game, do that. Get a grenade launcher, tank the damage and boost magazine capacity and firerate on it as possible. When you fight, fight not for any government or militia or mercenary outfit. Fight to set things on fire. And then set everything on fire.
Your damage output won't be fantastic, but by nature burning Napalm does more damage overall than regular explosives, you just have to have enemies standing in it for the full course. And it will do its full course of damage if everything is napalm. You could consider that a sort of build synergy. Debuffing massive areas with movement-impairing sticky napalm so that everything burns.
Same for abilities, they should all be around the same power (for offensive/defensive), but differ in how they apply offensive and defensive strategies. You could allow additional areas of customization for each ability too. For example, exchange the default High Explosives charge in Bombs Away for a Napalm charge. You do less damage up-front, but create a patch of burning ground that can debuff enemies.
Horizontally balanced games foster great freedom of choice, and I think Ember could be the one to do it given how much time we have to think about the systems. And, to what you said Daynen, it will be freedom of choice. There shouldn't be any impassable terrain, or enemies with tiny weakpoints only snipers could hit (aside from perhaps a raidboss, something like that should be fair to expect some level of specialization within the group of 20-40 players attempting it).
Any choice you make is one of preference, everything is viable. If you want to slot napalm into your four favorite explosive abilities in the game, do that. Get a grenade launcher, tank the damage and boost magazine capacity and firerate on it as possible. When you fight, fight not for any government or militia or mercenary outfit. Fight to set things on fire. And then set everything on fire.
Your damage output won't be fantastic, but by nature burning Napalm does more damage overall than regular explosives, you just have to have enemies standing in it for the full course. And it will do its full course of damage if everything is napalm. You could consider that a sort of build synergy. Debuffing massive areas with movement-impairing sticky napalm so that everything burns.