All classes can do all objectives. Yay or nay?

(MrFunkyFunk) #81

Some really need to stop waving all the time “this is an alpha” card. I was very fine with it and kept saying it myself to whoever complained months ago but come on, step into the real world.
The game has been in alpha for quite a lot of time already and I don’t believe, I only wish to be wrong here, that they’ll keep it going for another 8 months.

An example could be that we were told that drastic changes on the first maps were not going to happen due to the time invested in them and they could spend that time towards maps and features. I only gave the example to remind some that time is money, it’s a fact.
So I fear that they’re already ahead of us with emphasizing on characters instead of classes (and the proficiency levels and classless obj influenced maps) and that there won’t be any step back.
We’ve barely tested anything (small in size or often incomplete, which draw invalid & rushed feedback) or have been asked to thoroughly give feedback on targeted aspects (for the 7 months I’ve been in the whole testers base has only been contacted twice by mail: two polls, the first one was completed in 15 seconds). That’s alright, the ones who bother playing can just stick to it, ECHO is watching you.
It’s only recently that they acknowledged that their communication was rather terrible due to work load and decided to post detailed posts about what was coming. I still can’t get satisfied with the “wait & see”/“we’ll see” status and the lack of information clarity.

I’m gonna play the “I’m bad at english” card but I feel the rhetoric/formulations used in a lot of the last devs threads these past weeks is a sign that they have their roadmap, that they will stick to it and only concede on minor stuff to avoid more drama on the forums.

So yes I’m one of the disappointed.

(Raviolay) #82

[QUOTE=MrFunkyFunk;462591]Some really need to stop waving all the time “this is an alpha” card. I was very fine with it and kept saying it myself to whoever complained months ago but come on, step into the real world.
The game has been in alpha for quite a lot of time already and I don’t believe, I only wish to be wrong here, that they’ll keep it going for another 8 months.

An example could be that we were told that drastic changes on the first maps were not going to happen due to the time invested in them and they could spend that time towards maps and features. I only gave the example to remind some that time is money, it’s a fact.
So I fear that they’re already ahead of us with emphasizing on characters instead of classes (and the proficiency levels and classless obj influenced maps) and that there won’t be any step back.
We’ve barely tested anything (small in size or often incomplete, which draw invalid & rushed feedback) or have been ask to thoroughly give feedback on targeted aspects (for the 7 months I’ve been in the whole testers base has only been contacted twice by mail: two polls, the first one was completed in 15 seconds). That’s alright, the ones who bother playing can just stick to it, ECHO is watching you.
It’s only recently that they acknowledged that their communication was rather terrible due to work load and decided to post detailed posts about what was coming.

I’m gonna play the “I’m bad at english” card but I feel the rhetoric/formulations used in a lot of the last devs threads these past weeks is a sign that they have their roadmap, that they will stick to it and only concede on minor stuff to avoid more drama on the forums.[/QUOTE]

You must spread reputation before adding rep BS again good post nail on head.

If it does it would render the whole agnostic objectives moot, so why bother with them in the first place?

(Protekt1) #83

[QUOTE=Raviolay;462594]You must spread reputation before adding rep BS again good post nail on head.

If it does it would render the whole agnostic objectives moot, so why bother with them in the first place?[/QUOTE]

I don’t think the goal is to make the a-objs moot. The goal is to balance the characters in a way that you would consider each to have pros and cons to make your composition something to really strategize about while retaining a-objs. I hope I said that clear enough since I am on mobile.

(Dormamu) #84

Strongly dislike, tho i remembered this:

[QUOTE=Anti;433198]Hey,…
Coming in the Future

[ul]
…
[li]Additional game modes
[/li][/ul][/QUOTE]
If you could add rather than take we would not have this rage :smiley:
If this was another mode added to DB (or to replace the current TDM) i probably would be happy. With split rounds per obj. and respawn disabled/round you could give it a SnD feel :D. So i will convince myself that this test is just to balance classes abilities and search for new modes to be added to DB.

(INF3RN0) #85

This is something that can be gained indeed, and hopefully is the purpose behind it. Funky brings a good point as well, but then that may be because there’s so few devs actually making DB.

(BomBaKlaK) #86

[QUOTE=MrFunkyFunk;462591]Some really need to stop waving all the time “this is an alpha” card. I was very fine with it and kept saying it myself to whoever complained months ago but come on, step into the real world.
The game has been in alpha for quite a lot of time already and I don’t believe, I only wish to be wrong here, that they’ll keep it going for another 8 months.

An example could be that we were told that drastic changes on the first maps were not going to happen due to the time invested in them and they could spend that time towards maps and features. I only gave the example to remind some that time is money, it’s a fact.
So I fear that they’re already ahead of us with emphasizing on characters instead of classes (and the proficiency levels and classless obj influenced maps) and that there won’t be any step back.
We’ve barely tested anything (small in size or often incomplete, which draw invalid & rushed feedback) or have been asked to thoroughly give feedback on targeted aspects (for the 7 months I’ve been in the whole testers base has only been contacted twice by mail: two polls, the first one was completed in 15 seconds). That’s alright, the ones who bother playing can just stick to it, ECHO is watching you.
It’s only recently that they acknowledged that their communication was rather terrible due to work load and decided to post detailed posts about what was coming. I still can’t get satisfied with the “wait & see”/“we’ll see” status and the lack of information clarity.

I’m gonna play the “I’m bad at english” card but I feel the rhetoric/formulations used in a lot of the last devs threads these past weeks is a sign that they have their roadmap, that they will stick to it and only concede on minor stuff to avoid more drama on the forums.

So yes I’m one of the disappointed.[/QUOTE]

What he said !

(RasteRayzeR) #87

[QUOTE=MrFunkyFunk;462591]Some really need to stop waving all the time “this is an alpha” card. I was very fine with it and kept saying it myself to whoever complained months ago but come on, step into the real world.
The game has been in alpha for quite a lot of time already and I don’t believe, I only wish to be wrong here, that they’ll keep it going for another 8 months.

An example could be that we were told that drastic changes on the first maps were not going to happen due to the time invested in them and they could spend that time towards maps and features. I only gave the example to remind some that time is money, it’s a fact.
So I fear that they’re already ahead of us with emphasizing on characters instead of classes (and the proficiency levels and classless obj influenced maps) and that there won’t be any step back.
We’ve barely tested anything (small in size or often incomplete, which draw invalid & rushed feedback) or have been asked to thoroughly give feedback on targeted aspects (for the 7 months I’ve been in the whole testers base has only been contacted twice by mail: two polls, the first one was completed in 15 seconds). That’s alright, the ones who bother playing can just stick to it, ECHO is watching you.
It’s only recently that they acknowledged that their communication was rather terrible due to work load and decided to post detailed posts about what was coming. I still can’t get satisfied with the “wait & see”/“we’ll see” status and the lack of information clarity.

I’m gonna play the “I’m bad at english” card but I feel the rhetoric/formulations used in a lot of the last devs threads these past weeks is a sign that they have their roadmap, that they will stick to it and only concede on minor stuff to avoid more drama on the forums.

So yes I’m one of the disappointed.[/QUOTE]

Have to agree with this.

I feel like we have no weight on the essential parts of the game even if these are what we, gamers, are supposed to “shape” here. Globally it’s almost “what do you think of this feature ? We will implement it anyway, but we’re interested in your feedback”, or at least that’s what it feels like to me.

I don’t like to criticize DB harshly (and it’s not my style usually), but I got to admit, I’m starting to lose interest in this game because I feel like it’s going to be Brink all over again. It’s my guts that tell me that, and my guts always decide which game I’ll play with.

So here are my personal improvement points. I’m not calling for a debate on them, but they are what I think could give this game the uniqueness it completely lacks right now :

  • faster movement speed (try it in a patch at least)
  • longer ttk
  • definitely a trick movement style
  • no Brink-looking levels (same type of textures, cars, neat polished white metal panels everywhere, etc. )
  • more diversity in the guns (the new medic’s pistol is a great example on how to innovate IMO)
  • forward spawns
  • vfx that don’t look childish or powerless
  • less depressive maps
  • more open areas
  • something that makes DB something else but yet another free game on the market
  • objectives to which strategies could apply
  • an immersible world and story

Most of all I want to have to think when I play, because otherwise it’s just dumb shooting = boring. Make objectives that matter, not some fake documents to steal or bomb a wall. Give routes, options, choices, forward spawns, side objectives to take when we have to fight. Father FPS should get mother Strategy pregnant, and that’s imo the only viable way to make DB unique.

DB has a big potential, but right now I can’t find any depth to it, any real thing that hooks me except the good guys I’ve met in this alpha.

(AKAMrSmiley) #88

I didn’t bother reading the thread so I might be restating some things other people have said but after playing a couple matches and putting some thought into it… I feel like in pubs at least it promotes rambo last man standing behavior and under most circumstances many individuals will assume since they can do the objective after they clear there is no need to protect a particular player nor really a need to zone or distract certain players from players attempting to do the objective. As far as defense goes it benefits the team with the overall infantry shots and teams with lesser aim can no longer use communication and teamwork to bring down specific individuals who can actually complete the objective, so it will generally seem like a steam roll if the offense has superior shots.

(Raviolay) #89

Protect1 & INF3RN0 you are not going to win me over with this bollocks, you had pro’s & con’s to your teams composition with the old system. What didn’t and still does not help is that Solider 1&2 and Support 1&2 are almost mirrors of each other. Protect1 you are clear and it still sounds like bollocks to me, why play an engineer if all they do is the objective faster? No amount of tweaking is going to change that, both of you put your money where mouth is, & TELL me how YOU would: “balance the characters in a way that you would consider each to have pros and cons to make your composition something to really strategize about while retaining a-objs”. Without making the engineer a lost cause and retaining a purpose to having a-objs…

(ailmanki) #90

If you have 5 classes, you are limited to 5. Now if you lift that limitation, and create tons of mercs with different proficiency, you get more out of it. Heck the might even create more specialists for certain tasks.
I don’t really see how that breaks the spirit of ET. You still end up with a guy which is the preferred type to plant dyna, or repair something.

(nailzor) #91

It’s funny how on servers now everyone kind of expects everyone else to do the objectives, stalling how fast maps go =p

(Raviolay) #92

[QUOTE=ailmanki;462717]If you have 5 classes, you are limited to 5. Now if you lift that limitation, and create tons of mercs with different proficiency, you get more out of it. Heck the might even create more specialists for certain tasks.
I don’t really see how that breaks the spirit of ET. You still end up with a guy which is the preferred type to plant dyna, or repair something.[/QUOTE]

OK answer me this why bother playing a proficient class over the non-proficient unless the non-proficient are so slow doing the objective as to render it almost pointless them doing it? Until I have a definitive answer to this, the system is bollocks.

(ailmanki) #93

Well I don’t know if SD is going to make a class having 2 minutes to arm a dyna or something like that. No idea.
Overall I think on public you will have more fun. I don’t know how often I have changed to engi only to compelte the objective myself. I think it was more often, then that I supported some other engineer. There are many frustrating moments, where you escort an engineer and then he wanders off, or whatever happens to him. Instead of doing objective in that critical moment. I actually don’t want to bother about that question having to change to engineer, only so that I can plant.

As I have not played a lot of competition, I can only imagine and guess. More mercs with different proficienicies should get a more complex game. As such more thinking, I welcome that.

I believe it could give a realy great deepness to the game. Depending how the differences between each merc is implemented, and if there are synergies between some mercs. Also with RAD soldiers SD should have some good experience in this area.

So to finally answer your question, in pub you would not bother I think, but in competitive you would carefully choose your character based on what your teammates choose. And what you do expect from the enemy.
On the other hand, I have to add, as it is right now - that is total crap for competition. It takes away a huge element of thinking.

(ImageOmega) #94

Wow…never thought I’d say this…I agree with Tokamak. One specialized class for objectives.

(INF3RN0) #95

First off DB was barely a single obj class based game right from the start with all the globals, so you should have been fuming with rage from the get go. Well the only class that is a lost cause is the engineer. Why? Because he’s a completely defensively biased class and was only really there for objs and questionably for defense (though there were always better choices imo). Soldier being the only one with a grenade now and still having combat superiority is still a solid class (body shot damage makes it too easy to play though). Recon has been and still is a niche class so can’t comment on that. Now that engineer doesn’t do objs it’s obvious that it needs to be more appealing outside of its obj role.

I still think the old system of a single obj class was better for strategical play conceptually, but agnostic objs like Doc runs are really great so I am unsure it is required in all cases. The only reason why single obj classes were good was because all the objs were crap. I’d like to trash all the main obj “f button” types (plant, repair) if I had my way, and replace them with more fast paced and dynamic agnostic objs. Almost all of the main objectives are just plain boring to me. I’ve said it many times that I want class specific map flow side objs (hack doors, repair bridges, etc) to give them more unique worth outside of combat, but if someone can come up with agnostic main objs that are as good as doc runs for example I’d gladly abandon the old single class obj system.

So again I never said I liked this system as it is currently, but I am willing to see what they have planned for the next update with it. Otherwise what I want specifically is something completely different, and imo better than both- but who is to say.

(rapid_shot) #96

[QUOTE=Anti;462495]
As we stated prior to the update, this is the start of testing the change. Step one involves the class-agnostic changes and a few other tweaks, then we get feedback, then we tweak proficiency and character abilities, then we test again.

It’s good to get this early feedback but please bear with us whilst we test this stuff before casting the ‘final’ stone at this change.[/QUOTE]

I would like to hear your feedback, what do you think the % is that the game is released with class-agnostic objectives? This might ease some tension as it is unclear that this update is the direction of the final product or if its just a “Hey, lets try this out”.

If the former, anything less than 50% doesn’t seem worth the time, effort, or money for your sake or ours.

(Ashog) #97

Don’t see at all how agnostic objectives are more fun than class specific. It’s just the same old “boring” objective but everyone lemmings about it and there’s no tactics involved. Very fun.

(Kl3ppy) #98

Thats just not true. You have to fine tune the objective speeds of the mercs, you have to consider the spawnwaves (when they are finally working in DB) and you have to consider the traveling time/way from spawn to objective.

I think, that the main part of an objective should be done by a certain class, e.g. building/repairing/disarming by engie, hacking by covert, planting by Assault. So their speed needs to be the fastest. All other classes who are not designed primary for the objective, should have a much lower speed. Maybe they need twice the time than an engie needs to build something. The other classes than can finish objectives or keep them alive by touching them (which is based on the reset of objective if it’s not getting touched within a minute, like the building/hacking objectives in ETQW) but the best solution still would be the engie because the engie can set the lowest time and since DB is time based it’s the best solution, but not the only way. If DB would be ticketbased like the Conquest mod in Battlefield (dont take it as an idea which you guys can test in DB :tongue:) then the classless objective would lead to a line up of almost medics only.

The maps are currently defender biased and the new system would give the attacker an advantage. Attacker can use the momentum. But again, the current system isnt doing well, it feels like it was indeed a bit rushed and the tweaking of the mercs abilities towards the objective was some random guessing. Also consider what strych said in the other thread about the map design, he said many good and true things. But dont use the new system to cover some poor map designs.

I believe that the new system in DB can be succesful, I believe in Anti that he can fix it and make it real enjoyable.

(Ashog) #99

You can’t say that something is not true until the other thing is implemented and tested. So far it hasn’t happened. Until then what I said is empirically proven to be true.

What I am afraid of if the other thing gets implemented and fails badly, there will be no turning back. That’s all.

(Kl3ppy) #100

[QUOTE=Ashog;462773]You can’t say that something is not true until the other thing is implemented and tested. So far it hasn’t happened. Until then what I said is empirically proven to be true.

What I am afraid of if the other thing gets implemented and fails badly, there will be no turning back. That’s all.[/QUOTE]

Well, for the current state of the objective system you are right. But I believe that the agnsotic objective style can add extra value to DB if its configured and implemented the right way. Also keep in mind, if it fails badly even tho it’s heavily tweaked and modified, we still can go back to the classbased objectives.