Body Type System: Poll

[tokamak]

What do you guys think are the cons of the lock system btw?

None. The only con is when teams are left without essential parts because of it, but there’s no such thing as an essential body type so there’s no harm in locking it. Unlocking it however defeats it’s purpose.

[darthmob]

LOL. I just literally laughed out loud as I saw the ‘dynamic beard growth’ tag for the thread! Who came up with that one? A subtle hint at the Medal of Honor reveal?

In all seriousness: this topic has been discussed a lot and many valid points have been made. Rahdo has replied to it so I’m sure we can assume our concerns have been noted by SD. What else do you want?

[spazski]

I voted for being locked into the body type for the whole match. It seems excessive, to me, to be changing out everything while the game is going on.

[INF3RN0]

When did i say that what ever they pick will work? I said going on what information Rahdo has given us, features i’ve read, discussions in IRC, the testing going on and the fact they’ve dropped lesser things for not working properly the way they want… i would assume testing has concluded that it’s a working concept… how does that not make sense? I think you read the parts you want to read and ignore the rest.

Yeah i’ll refer you back to the “if something doesn’t work then SD usually drop it” comment then.

??? You keep responding like everything is an attack. I wanted to present the pros and cons of each system, and discuss how it might affect the balance. Horse at least gave a pretty constructive response and I can see that tomak does not think that there is anything wrong with locking at all, which is perfectly fine. You saying that any discussion at all is pointless is plain rude.

[QUOTE=darthmob;217157]
In all seriousness: this topic has been discussed a lot and many valid points have been made. Rahdo has replied to it so I’m sure we can assume our concerns have been noted by SD. What else do you want?[/QUOTE]
A poll gives a much more understandable picture than a long messy thread. Plus the other thread was pretty confined with just two possible solutions.

[Senyin]

As much as I like variety, at this point I really prefer for bodytypes
to be exterior only to be honest.
I’m getting more and more negative about bodytypes.

Anyway, I’m now hanging between locking bodytypes for the whole match
and being able (for a fee) to change bodytype only when changing class also.
Not sure yet.

[INF3RN0]

Anyone who is skeptical of the locking system because they fear it might pose balance issues in a random pub environment most likely is concerned with these issues. It would help to get some solid confirmation from SD that these have actually been tested thoroughly even if it is a simple “yes”. Radhos previous posts say that there aren’t significant problems thus far, but he also seems to think that problems will be avoided by smart team distribution. I want to be especially sure that in the case that players might not make smart decisions regarding their team body type distribution, that it won’t be a game changing factor.

1. Team body type variance A = team body type variance B

The same group of players can still be equally successful no matter what the body type variation is on a team overall (there is not a measurable advantage in regards to body type distribution).

2. Body type x for class X = Body type y for class X

Certain body types will not make a certain class significantly more effective than another (gain/loss system). This is based on someone who is equally capable of playing any body type.

3. The combination of these two variables will not allow for an ideal distribution of body type/class.

I definitely get your point, but I think this is where the fundamental disagreement stems from. To me, there is no one best bodytype for any situation. All three of them are valuable, all bring something different, and all are useful in any tactical situation. A team of all heavies is well set to take on any situation, as is a team of all lights; the two teams would just handle the situations differently. And that’s what I really like about the system right now, that the combinations that come about because of the unpredictable mix of body types really helps keep every situation fresh and unique.

Basically verifying the credibility of this statement would convince a lot of people that locking will not affect the balance.

[SSF-Sage]

I did not read the whole thread…

I thing a good thing would be to have “2 players in use”. Those 2 would have to be set before the match starts. Then you can change between them freely in the match. It would be great to swap between light/giant in the middle of the match if the situation needs it. Would be great way to add some fine fine tactics for the players.

[brbrbr]

voted “others”.
meant “locked body types for account”[PER-MA-NENTLY].

[tokamak]

Ideally I’d like to see one character committed to the whole match, so even if you disconnect and log in again you are still stuck to that same character untill the match is done.

[QUOTE={SSF}Sage;217246]I did not read the whole thread…

I thing a good thing would be to have “2 players in use”. Those 2 would have to be set before the match starts. Then you can change between them freely in the match. It would be great to swap between light/giant in the middle of the match if the situation needs it. Would be great way to add some fine fine tactics for the players.[/QUOTE]

That would mean you have access to 2/3 of the body types…

Blizzard actually made the same mistake (twice!) by letting players switch gear during the match. That meant that the moment a warlock started casting a shadowbolt to you, you only needed to press the ‘put on shadow resistance armour’ macro to halt the effect. It created a cheap rock-paper-scissors mini game. They quickly found that problem in the beta and locked gear during combat. Then when the arena’s were added into the game, the same thing happened but on a bigger scale. People had fixed sets of armour best for each class, the moment they saw an other team appear on the other side of the arena, they immediately switched to the gear that worked best against that class (and the other team did the same).

This did two things:

A- People who grinded more beforehand had a more extensive wardrobe to specialise in (just like in Brink), this means that the difference in ‘unlocks’ determined the outcome more.
B- Some classes were affected more (classes that happened to use spells that were easily countered by gear that otherwise nobody would wear).
C- People didn’t have to think a second about what gear they would pick before the match as they could simply make up their minds during the fight.
D- It added a layer of “tactics” that was neither fun or clever, but at the same time highly necessary if you wanted to win. In other words, annoying background noise.

It took a short while before Blizzard locked you inside your armour the moment you entered the arena. No changing was possible any more. All of these points can apply to Brink as well. More convenience actually means less convenience because both teams will have to keep responding to what the other team picks in the limbo menu. Players will feel forced to switch body-types all the time just because the other team does it as well. It degrades the fight into a locker-room war.

[spazski]

[QUOTE=brbrbr;217249]voted “others”.
meant “locked body types for account”[PER-MA-NENTLY].[/QUOTE]

That kinda defeats the purpose of unlocking the other body types as you go along.

[tokamak]

That kinda defeats the purpose of unlocking the other body types as you go along.

Which is a bad idea by itself.

[Apoc]

Heres my problem, if i bring etqw as an example for this, as imo it is a gameplay masterpiece with a counter to everything and no best way of doing anything.
Now all my concern is in brink is the limited options to counter.

i.e Lets say everyones in game with their locked body types, and are lossing. The only option is to change class to counter whats happening. This is a simple “they have more soldiers so we need more medics” aproach, which isnt really that deep gameplay wise. In etqw, vehicles and artillery etc added the extra dimension to tactics. This lead to a constantly changing battlefield, where vehicles were countering infantry, then infantry countering vehicles and if that wasnt enough then vehicles countering vehicles etc etc etc.

Im just worried that a oportunity for a great constantly changing, adapting battlefield in brink is being lost by locking the body types. As that would give it the same 3rd dimension that etqw found in vehicles. So if a teaam had a load of light medics it may be more apropriate to change from you light class to heavy to make sure you gib players quickly so they cant be medic trained etc etc…

Just my 2 cents

[spazski]

Which is a bad idea by itself.

I can’t say I disagree with that.

[tokamak]

Though there are already lots of dynamic functions in the game, lots of options a player can go for. What misses is a rigid variable that isn’t influenced as easily as classes and weapon loadouts.

[INF3RN0]

Ideally I’d like to see one character committed to the whole match, so even if you disconnect and log in again you are still stuck to that same character untill the match is done.

A loop hole in the system would simply end in disconnects and reconnects, as I think I remember Radho addressing. However if there is no reason to change body types, then I doubt it will happen.

[QUOTE=Apoc;217311]Heres my problem, if i bring etqw as an example for this, as imo it is a gameplay masterpiece with a counter to everything and no best way of doing anything.
Now all my concern is in brink is the limited options to counter.

i.e Lets say everyones in game with their locked body types, and are lossing. The only option is to change class to counter whats happening. This is a simple “they have more soldiers so we need more medics” aproach, which isnt really that deep gameplay wise. In etqw, vehicles and artillery etc added the extra dimension to tactics. This lead to a constantly changing battlefield, where vehicles were countering infantry, then infantry countering vehicles and if that wasnt enough then vehicles countering vehicles etc etc etc.

Im just worried that a oportunity for a great constantly changing, adapting battlefield in brink is being lost by locking the body types. As that would give it the same 3rd dimension that etqw found in vehicles. So if a teaam had a load of light medics it may be more apropriate to change from you light class to heavy to make sure you gib players quickly so they cant be medic trained etc etc…

Just my 2 cents[/QUOTE]
This is why I am putting my hope in that if body types are locked, they will at the very least not be an important part of the game…

[tokamak]

[QUOTE=INF3RN0;217347]A loop hole in the system would simply end in disconnects and reconnects, as I think I remember Radho addressing. However if there is no reason to change body types, then I doubt it will happen.
[/QUOTE]

The server can just remember you. And people can have all the reasons in the world to change body types that doesn’t matter that they should be able to change it anyway.

This is why I am putting my hope in that if body types are locked, they will at the very least not be an important part of the game…

Just admit it, you want to see them removed altogether.

[INF3RN0]

The server can just remember you. And people can have all the reasons in the world to change body types that doesn’t matter that they should be able to change it anyway.

Yes of course that would be a pretty effective option, but this was the point I was trying to make there.

However if there is no reason to change body types, then I doubt it will happen.

[QUOTE=tokamak;217351]
Just admit it, you want to see them removed altogether.[/QUOTE]
See your problem is that you still don’t get the point I have been making, as it is not that this system is bad, but if certain things are not taken into mind then it has a fairly big chance of not working. You don’t seem to realize that when Radho said that he didn’t notice a very significant difference between body type variations, that that was his opinion. If body types do make a difference however, then that is where people are concerned… I doubt that you can support Radho’s opinion without playing for long hours in different scenarios. Most people aren’t worried that unlocking is a better option, but rather a necessity if we do discover body types make a difference at the team level. I want to make sure that all possible problems have been considered and tested. Understand yet?

[tokamak]

You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. Every time I give a list of reasons why swapping body types is a bad thing you come up with your only argument ‘locking them might give some problems’. Either you name those problems or just admit that you have no clue what you’re talking about because right now it’s like talking to a brick wall here.

[INF3RN0]

You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. Every time I give a list of reasons why swapping body types is a bad thing you come up with your only argument ‘locking them might give some problems’. Either you name those problems or just admit that you have no clue what you’re talking about because right now it’s like talking to a brick wall here.

Wow. There is such an obvious difference between what you are saying and I am. If body types “DO NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE” then discussion is over, but there is not enough info to say that this is in fact true. I know that SD is testing this for these exact reasons, but are they taking everything into mind? There might not be a problem on the individual level, but what about the team level? Why don’t you try and think about what might go wrong and discuss it so that it won’t happen. This not an argument, just discussion. There is no reason not to lock, unless the things I have kept stating are a serious issue.

[tokamak]

If bodytypes (regardless of how they’re played) determine the outcome of a match then that means they’re unbalanced. You don’t solve that by reducing their importance by unlocking them, you solve that by adjusting them so that they become balanced.

You’re actually suggesting a cop out. Complacency is not a reason to remove or diminish a fun feature.