Sooo I need some community input

pc
evolve

#41

I really don’t know how competent you are (or your team) but in any case i suggest you tone your scope down.
I would rather have a small but well polished than a lack cluster AAA game.For me that is what Evolve suffer: a lack of resource plus restrained here and there that end up pushing the game to it demise


#42

We both origonally discussed a game that would be 4v1 + AI which would be a game where each side would have to know when to captilise on one another and have a couple of different ways of winning the game. Although I think we both agreed the concept would work and be great fun, doing a project that large with very few professionals is sadly unrealistic. We still could go back to that option but then again a refined Hunt that is accessable to everyone could be brilliant if we can make it work.


#43

Just thinking about it you can really go in to the nitty gritty of certain things that really screwed new or the average player. For instance lets look at Hydes Minigun. To any unexpereinced player “SWEET a massive minigun that looks meaty and I can shoot the monster from a distance!” When in all honesty it was at the end of stage 2 god damn useless other than the tiny amount of damage you could do on the chaise. All of the hunters kits need to be more useful than that and also clear to players about what you can do with said kit.


#44

Hey,

Mostly lurk, rarely post and I apologize if this has been covered. I’m just super busy!!!

I did want to add something here in case it hasn’t been said.

I feel it’s a tough job, but I’m glad @Chickenprotector and @GrizzleMarine are taking it on.

As someone who has played Legacy an extreme amount (I still do on PS4 LOL) I want to say this:

  1. I believe the biggest issue was balance, and not just from the devs side, but from all the different players wanting this that etc. TRS was more than open to listening, and I think that proposed some of the issues.
    The game has two sides to it, and on one of the sides, it needs 4 people to be happy, and on one side only 1 person. So it needs to feel even on two sides, and that won’t be easy. If you find that balance, listen to the feedback, but don’t be a slave to it.

  2. (of 3) the base game legacy wasn’t perfect but neither was stage 2. I truly believe, that somewhere between the two is a sweet spot.
    For example, I liked the dome changes once up, but hated the idea of everyone having the dome.
    I believe in stage 2 they should have kept the mechanics of the dome, but only trapper could throw it.
    I believe had TRS made something called Stage 1.5 it would have been a better experience over all. This leads to number 3

  3. Game Modes. Not that it was a terrible thing, in terms of accessibility, but a lot of core changes were made so more casual fans could take to the game.
    I believe that a proper mix of both casual and ranked game modes will be important. You can look to many other games that employ this strategy. Brawlhala, overwatch, etc.
    My feedback would be to not tailor the core mechanics to the more casual scene, but instead tailor game modes.
    OH and, if you think this is something that will take off, if not right away, but within a month have the ranked mode up.
    Otherwise you’ll run into serious players leaving quickly, and casual players playing a lot more with try hard, which can be frustrating.

I have full and utter belief in you two and whomever else may be helping. There’s a game just like Evolve waiting to be made, and capture the spirit for everyone. I’m not a dev, or a coder etc.

I have played a ton of games, and in my adulthood, more competitive games. I’ll throw out my two cents if wanted or if I feel I can contiebute. This one I feel those are three core reasons why there were issues.

Evolve to me is the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be in terms of the love and core fun I had. I watched 100’s of players come and go, and I promise you, those 3 reasons were big ones.

Good luck, I’m always lurking personally, and I look forward to one day playing your game.

Keep up the passion and incredible attitudes/work.

Everyone here is there for you.


#45

I will be watching this thread too.


#46

You should also think about QoL improvement once you really feel that you can work on your project, such as fixing the little things that act like a grain of sand in the gear.

The traversals when hitting a wall, you bounce off of it.
The feeding prevention due to the meat not registering.
Some abilities should also be tweaked for the monsters due to some counter strategies (rock block for example).

Reworking the cimbing from a ledge for the hunters, sometimes they climb the ledge but do not get high enough, so they get stuck in a climbing loop.
Tweaking lesser played hunters to make them more reliable (Kala and B.Cabot for example).
Tweak the hp regen so instead of healing once per second, it heals in ticks.
Change absolutely the grave robber and blood leech perks, they’re too strong to be tolerated.

Adding back the Tyrant if possible.


#47

I don’t want to give the wrong impression, I wasn’t expecting any colony ai situation to be involved! Imagine a more dynamic, non linear and free flowing version of the defend game mode, but without ai and without the map design that makes it a Hunter camp-fest


#48

Alright…

@SledgePainter Oh no you don’t. You speak up and then you can go back into your dark corner to lurk.

@Jayrob2k72 I’d have to disagree. It comes back to a fundamental problem: Who will throw the dome if you got an idiot on it. Universal access helps, the previous dome mechanics imho were fine, but changes to prevent God Domes would have to be in order. Easier said than done, but you get the gist. The rest has been discussed at one point or another, but I’ll keep that in mind. Thanks for the feedback.

@Dovahkick Aye. One more thing, this isn’t a 1-1 remake of Evolve. I don’t want to be sued.


#49

Thanks for tagging me on this, just now saw the email and caught up on all the posts. As with most of us, this thread resembles a conversation I have had many times. And I love it. All really good posts so far, but @niaccurshi is especially resonating with my thoughts. Also chicken/grizzle would love to talk to you guys sometime just to see what you guys had in mind or even if I could get involved. Now for brief answers to the OP followed by longer answers.

Movement: I think movement was at least 90% right. Unique traversals for monsters were essential and brilliant. Running/Jetpacks/Climbing all worked and FELT fun for hunters. Balancing was a grey area because that had fundamental impact on the pace and purpose of the game. Just how much faster than the hunters should the monster be?

Characters: I’m in favor of class roles, but preset characters were never part of my dream evolve. I always thought it would have been better to have custom character weapon/skill loadouts for free and sell the skins/voices/characters.

Skill Floor: Easiest answer has always been different game modes. Evolve monsters have always seemed like dungeon masters for a monster hunting game and that was true independent of skill. A knowledgeable/experienced player was always going to have a better capacity to give hunters an interesting game based on pathing and awareness. I think for any non competitive play mode for the game that onus of entertainment has to be taken off the monster.

Environments : For gameplay I liked stage 2 maps much better. Legacy maps too often had spawn points in the center of the map which significantly reduced monster feed paths. Legacy maps had too many spots that were completely hunter or monster favored to fight in.

Power Gaps: Interesting question that leads into some significant changes to the game. I like the basic idea of getting at least 3 domes/fights per game with stage 1 hunter>monster, stage 2 hunter=monster, stage 3 hunter<monster. That is what I always envisioned as structure to a well played game of evolve. But you are right, the experience always did feel a bit stagnant as a hunter.

Bullet points briefly answered, I’m going to elaborate more freely now.

The biggest dilemma for the game was always a balance between running simulator, thrilling chase, and intriguing tracking/hunting game. I don’t think there were enough tools in the game to make stealth compelling. There simply wasn’t enough for a hunter to do while tracking or enough options to give hunters a sense of agency. You were beholden to the monster entirely for how the game would play.

Your tools of tracking the monster (footprints, sounds, rustled/displaced/eaten wildlife, broken trees, birds) were all very passive. 3/4 of the team had very passive options for tracking the monster. And the one guy who had active abilities to track the monster probably shouldn’t be that close in the first place because he has to safely throw the dome in a good position.

This changed in stage 2 with 4 man dome squad and planet scanner. Stealth as a long term option was essentially destroyed. So the balance turned almost completely to chase and combat which was good because that is where the game had the most engaging tools for players to use. And honestly 20 minute stealth games and flee 'till 3 were never ideal gameplay (sorry @deanimate).

Thats how I see it, from legacy the game could have improved on stealth and hunting or improved on combat and action, and they chose right. It seems like there was a split between players that thought the point of the game was solely to evade hunters until stage 3 and players who thought the goal was to kill each other. I was more in the latter camp, but I didn’t quite like 4 man dome squad, planet scanner, or nearly complete death of stealth. I just wanted fights forced a different way.


Much like @niaccurshi, my idea was always to give multiple/progressing objectives to hunters and monster. As it was, hunters only choices were to hunt the monster, wait at relay, or get buffs. I would love to have seen maps designed with multiple contestable relays to fight over. Something to give hunters another purpose, choice, or agency in the game. Same could be said for monster in early game.

More detailed idea of objectives would be 3 mini objectives per map that all open early in the game. 2-3 minutes in maybe. Hunters can repair/activate an objective but monster can intervene, monster can destroy/infest but hunters can intervene. Winning one objective locks the other 2 for 2-3 minutes maybe. These mini objectives could be independent from the main objective of stage 3 monster destroying the central relay. Balance maps to where there is enough time for both sides to react, but probably skew timing a little to monster favor so it still forces hunters to hunt/chase more. The idea is this would give hunters a way to make their own game plan and still leave time for hunt/chase between objectives.

I think the cool idea for these mini objectives would be they alter or expand the environment of the map in ways that change gameplay that give advantage to certain monsters/hunters. Would be cool to see, for instance, a dam get broken and a third of the map gets flooded but opens another third that has better feeding or terrain for certain monsters. That one seems really, really hard to do though.

The more practical benefit to objectives would be monster/hunter buffs or relay weakening/reducing, or both. 1 objective give damage boost, 1 give health, 1 give movement or something.

Mini objectives, that is probably my biggest thing I would change about evolve if the rest stayed as is.


#50

Well, I thought it was by looking at your post:

By asking questions about what could have been changed in Evolve, it made me think that you were planning to work on an improved version of Evolve.
But I think you won’t get sued if you don’t make money out of it if you really were planning to reprogram Evolve, in that case it would be called a fan game.


#51

@Puggims This is the primary reason I tagged you. You’ve got a lot of insight and can give very good constructive feedback in an eloquent way. I’d welcome your opinions imho, but as I said, its still in the planning stages. This is a massive undertaking and I’d welcome your opinion after I get past a certain point, which will likely be after I get the basic movement fleshed out and start getting down to the nitty gritty things that I need to plan around.

I realized just after scratching the surface just how much code and other efforts go into making a game and its a lot; more than I ever could have imagined without actually looking into it myself.

I’ll be getting a team together, that much is sure, Grizzle and I can’t do it by ourselves. It’d take years and I’d likely burn out before it was finished.


Now onto poking the bear.

Your & @niaccurshi’s opinions opened me to a wider prospective, so that alone made the thread worth it.

The TL;DR I’m getting here from everyone so far is that monster movement is fine, Hunters could be tweaked a bit to interact with the environment more. Grizzle mentioned something akin to Titan Fall 2’s movement with some jetpack mixed in, and I feel that would work best, and if its tweaked correctly; extremely rapid fuel regeneration with more stringent use on dodges, it’d lower the skill floor, and likely bump the skill ceiling higher if its tweaked in just the right way, and people want the environment to dictate the terms of engagement, not the monster. Which was something I was thinking of, but was at a loss of how to make it mesh well with the original plan of the game and Hunt dynamic.

As far as environments, it’s mixed to say the least. The gist of what I’m getting is that from a gameplay prospective, the way Stage 2 maps were set up is better for gameplay, but people liked the visual fidelity legacy had. Finding a good balance so a monster can still have some stealth options could be a good option to pursue; as far as dynamic environments, it can easily be done… if the map is designed around that to begin with, and with the objective/sub-objective system everyone keeps throwing out there, it can easily be done so long as its not over the top.

The characters bit is a bit iffy, while I like customization, that’s easier said than done. While I prefer a more open-ended approach to the class system, unique characters are easier to develop an attachment to. Ideally, you’d select a character you’d like and select a loadout of your own making from a set you think can work.

The power gap is something that can be readily solved by changing some of the core mechanics and making it based around a advantage/disadvantage system to incentivize players to play a certain way without making it too restrictive.


@Dovahkick I’m making a new game based around the mechanics of Evolve, it has a lot of parallels to the game we all know and love, it’s why I’m asking for community input on this. I want to broaden my horizons because I can’t cover everything with my mind’s eye.


#52

Oh, I see, but now that I think of StreamBear, he has made a thread some months ago about a game concept as well.


#53

Yeah, I was talking to Grizzle privately long before that one showed up. This project was an idle fancy at that time.

Before I forget, @DarKastlez, @ToiletWraith I want your opinions too.


#54

Most of you are covering all of the points I would make, but I will add that if you go so far into trying to design a new game based off of albeit not the same as Evolve, seriously, I would not mind being a creature concept designer for it.


#55

I’ll prolly take you up on that eventually, it’ll be most welcome. :slight_smile:


#56

I may be able to offer my support (programming), but first there are a few concerns that you didn’t ask about, but you need to be asking yourself.


For one, I’m going to echo LemonTree on this, you may want to seriously consider scoping down. Game dev is a seriously massive undertaking and it always looks smaller from the outside, and this is coming from someone who has only peeled one layer of the onion and is already horrified. No, not really horrified, but it’s massive. I don’t know about the rest of the team you’re putting together, but I do believe you’ve said that you are still in school and looking to portfolio with this work.

Part-timing, having no industry experience, and having no funding are all extremely strong factors in scoping. At this level, even the lower end of indie games would be a difficult goal. Not to discourage you, I’d love to see you succeed. But in order to do that you must aim high enough to inspire but also low enough to complete without running dry, and have spare capacity for multiple crashes/disasters as well.


Secondly, you seem to be polling mostly old legacy players and high-level players. While I don’t fault your preferences, when you are seriously seeking feedback you must make sure you are seeing all sides of the story, and not asking leading questions, which is a lot harder than it sounds. This forum might be a convenient place to ask things but it gets you a small subset of the players, which are very similar and do not represent all types of players.

If you are able to access more demographics, you should draw opinions from them as well, or you will encounter the same, appeal-is-too-narrow problem. Big games can only be big because players with lower proficiencies can still enjoy playing them.

  • Find players who picked up the game after F2P, but dropped it pretty early and ask them why they left.
  • Find players who picked up Legacy early but also left early.
  • Find players who picked up the game after the playerbase went down and ask them how they found it and why they stayed/left.
  • Find players who played all casual games, or played at a very low level, and ask them why they like the game despite it being very competitive. (Or why they didn’t.)

Third, team composition and organizational dynamics. Simply put, do you have all the people you need in each category? Will they stay with you, or unexpectedly leave, canning the whole project?

General

  • Who will handle the HR? Can you make sure one person leaving/under-performing will not ruin the operation?
  • Do you have a producer to make sure everyone stays on time, coordinated and on track?
  • What is the legal status of the IP and assets that you will produce?
  • What are your communication channels? Are you able to meet in-person or deal with not being able to?

Art/Sound

  • Do you have artists? Do they cover your required skills and specializations, or are you asking a cartoon artist to lightmap?
  • Do your artists know how to assist the programmers with implementing their assets?
  • Are your artists able to cope with the scope of the game production?

Programming

  • Do you have source control and agreement on how it is to be used?
  • Do all your programmers know the same language and engine?
  • Are your programmers familiar with working as a team, dividing areas with minimal overlap, and blackboxing/integrating?
  • Is your project big enough to warrant documentation? How will you agree to handle it, before you start?
  • Can your programmers, between them, cover difficult topics like networking and adaptive UI?

That’s all for now, but I can assist your planning further if you’d like, or can’t find someone better. Good luck.


#57

First thing’s first, I appreciate the offer of assistance, I’ve stated this numerous times, it’s in the planning phases. I have no desire to put together a team at this point in time until I get it to a point where I feel comfortable showing the people I’m recruiting the shit I’ve been working on. I don’t expect someone to join in when I have nothing and realistically, this thing could fall apart at any moment. Once I’m far enough along, I will file an IP claim. I have no name for the game, let alone a background for the IP; so how the hell am I going to file one.

I know full well what I’m getting myself into. I peeled back a few layers of the onion already and its only whetted my appetite for more. I already selected an Engine, and I’m already poking around about capabilities, programming (I’m a programmer myself - and I’m fully aware of blackboxing, etc), and art styles (Grizzle’s an artist btw). I would not be polling the community otherwise.

Organization; Also aware of this. I played competitive for a time, ran an organization myself (different story), and have extensively researched the topic. Going so far as to talk to some of the devs myself privately. So yes, I know full well what I’m getting myself into.

Concept; It’s a game similar to Evolve, but not Evolve itself. I already scaled back scope once, and I’ll likely do it again if I deem it necessary to be done. I don’t want to discuss business further publicly, but I have a release schedule in mind, including getting funding. I’ve got some cash in my pocket and I know money talks, I intend on putting my money where my mouth is. After it gets out of the early concept stages I’ll start building what I need, not before.


#58

This part sounds very much like the origonal idea @Chickenprotector and I discussed. Long story short the game we origonally came up with the hunters would have 3 “hives” accorss the map that they could collect a substance that the monsters nest excretes that is a type of “fuel.” that fuel could then be used for upgrades from a home point and once they were extracting the monster and AI could intervien and slow or stop this process. Basically the fuel would be a point style system but that idea would leave no room for hunting and a more monster jumps in, gets a few strikes and then flees to eat and get more “energy” to be able to enage again.

Its quite hard to explain but we might be able to keep that objective style of thinking after the hunt progresses to stage three. We’ll have to do some more brian storming.


#59

I’ll list my gripes that I can think of off the top of my head as honest as I can.
-There was no option to toggle proximity detonation on or off. Would have liked to see that option.
-Back in the development of Evolve thread, MacMan stated that they removed the “blinding” ability from alpha goliath because it wasnt fun to play against. They then release Slim, T4 medic with exactly that. I feel as if Slim should have had some sort of revamp because once again, its kinda… ironic they would do that.
-Sunny. Everything about her was just too good personally. Bring her nade damage down, perhaps even go to her original design: Sticky grenades. However take inspiration from the demoman of TF2. Make it possible to only be able to have X amount of grenades out, though they can be planted anywhere. It might make her a bit more skillbased. Towards the end I feel jetpack booster might have been in a good spot.

You’re probably wondering where my Kraken complaints are. I have none. I have no qualms, I just hate playing Hyde against him due to range.

Might come back to the thread later, but thats all I have for now.


#60

Fantastic, you sound like you know what you’re doing. I await your good news.

Other than that, do remember to poll people outside of this crowd, especially the “early leavers”, since retention is a problem.

Also, it is admirable to want some proof-of-concept before onboarding a team, but it’s a catch-22 situation. Sometimes, you still need a core team before you have the capacity to build the proof-of-concept.

I’ll stop poking my nose around now, but I’m always around if you need something.