Member
Hi Devs
So far I've put roughly 130 hours into Breakpoint.
My player demographic
Age: Mid 30's
Play games for: Challenge, strategy, stealth action, pvp, coop.
Prefer to play: PvE in extreme, minimal HUD. Also, enjoy coop and PvP.
I like many of the other players in the community am not a fan of the tiered loot system.
SUGGESTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE TO TIERED LOOT
I have read some excellent suggestions on this forum. Whilst tiered loot can have its benefits, giving us reason to explore different places, raid bases we have already been to and add a somewhat shallow layer of replayability. Here are some suggestions for a system that is more appropriate in that it adds depth, for a tactical shooter game such as ghost recon. Many of these ideas are taken from other threads as well as new ones.
Weapon Quality
Poor: gun can jam, limited attachment points, poor accuracy, high recoil
Medium: jam less likely, more attachment points, better accuracy, lower recoil
High: does not jam, most attachment points, high accuracy, more predictable recoil
Spec Ops: does not jam, all/customizable attachment points, highest accuracy for weapon class, highly predictable recoil
The drop is relevant to the challenge of the enemy type/ base/ area you are facing. For example if you kill one of the low-level enemy goons, you can pick up their gun and it will be of low quality. If you are lucky enough to take out an enemy spec ops soldier, the quality of the weapon they drop will be high.
The pick up of the open-world guns from enemies/ boxes will be randomized so that if you get a gun of a certain quality, with certain randomized attachments that you like, you will value you it more.
In order to customize the gun the way you want it at spec ops level, you have to find the blueprint in the world, the weapon attachment blueprint, the specific camo you like in the open world.
To customize the weapon you can only do that at base/ bivouac and it costs significant resources. Not money/ skell creds, but resources collected from the world.
This leads me onto...
SURVIVAL ECONOMY BALANCING
Some context:
One observation I have had from playing numerous Ubisoft open-world games is that they are huge, but can feel somewhat hollow because assets are so heavily copied and pasted. Skill ups review of Assasins Creed Oddessey is a good example. None of the places felt that memorable for him as so many assets were reused that it was all very forgetful in the end.
I felt the same way in GR wildlands.
I think GR Breakpoint has done a better job than wildlands and Auroa is more interesting to explore.
I have my most enjoyable times when I don't just go from mission A-B and avoid using air transport. With the HUD off I allow myself to be distracted and go where my eyes take me. From this alone, I have had my most memorable experiences. There was more of a survival behind enemy lines feel, which I think the devs intended and was heavily marketed in the reveal.
This "feel" is what is important and how I think the "economy" can be used to help improve that immersion further.
When I played Days Gone, the challenge/immersion was at its best near the beginning of the game. The risk of having to stealth into an infested area to gather resources to build health items, traps items, ammo etc, made every place I encountered on the map exciting, challenging and interesting. Everywhere mattered. It wasn't just another copy and pasted shed, with nothing of value in it. Sadly this faded by halfway through the game, but I never forgot how much more immersed I felt at the beginning.
I believe that if you can recreate this same feeling in Breakpoint, by making resources rarer, craftable items more impactful on gameplay, and makes the open world you have built feel fuller/ of more value. I will be incentivized to explore more of the land, random areas, checkpoints, old huts, skell technology points, because there may be some resources I need to build certain items back at my bivouac.
At the moment, I have all the guns I want, too many resources that I never need to use so I have no incentive to check out the cabin in the woods as I know the loot box will have nothing of great value for me. I don' need another identical M4A1 that is simply 1 level higher than my currently equipped one.
If you can design the economy of items to carry more value and sustain that into the end game, the replayability factor would be hugely increased. I am not suggesting to make a hardcore survival game, but to find a way to keep players finding value in exploring, gathering and farming items needed for missions.
For example, If my friends and I want to take on a Behemoth/ raid a wolf base for a spec ops weapon blueprint, we first need to collect resources to craft our EMP's, Rocket Launchers, etc. This makes us take the mission more seriously and adds a consequence for failing by losing some of our resources in that attempt. Just being able to buy it all, makes exploring the open world to collect the necessary resources a waste of time.
If we collect resources/ loot in the open world, make us "bank it" at bivouacs so that we store our supplies. If we die on the way back to "bank " we lose a significant portion, if not all of our newly acquired resources.
Much like dark souls, it creates risk, reward, and tension that keeps us immersed.
Thanks
Member
Member
Senior Member
