Community Question: Create a Class

[edxot]

my suggestion is not a new class, but instead, allow people to choose hybrid classes. a mixture of 2 existing classes with minor features of each.

few examples:
hybrid between medic and field ops - able to drop medic packs and ammo, but no air strikes, arty, revives or crates
hybrid between constructor and opressor - able to repair, disarm, and drop shields, but without deployables, mines, violators and arty
hybrid between technician and agressor - able to drop stroyent and equiped with lighning pistol, but no revives, hosts or heavy weapons

if etqw isn’t confusing enough already, hehehe

however this would require some changes in unlocks rewarding system, so i dont expect this to become real anytime soon (or later).

[tokamak]

Seems that you’re afraid that you can’t get by on your own laurels and need to rely on an artificial system to fill in the gaps that you can’t be bothered to fill yourself. The gaps are there whether there’s a check box for it or not, the option to focus your play style to fill those gaps or develop those areas are there whether you want to be purely support, purely offensive or in-between is there and always has been. If you need a system to tell you how to play, then I’m afraid it’s the player themselves that have become redundant if they can’t decide what type of player they want to be.

You don’t engage my point at all. Banking on a specialisation also means taking the disadvantages that come with a higher specialised role. That means that rather than having all tools at your disposal, you suddenly will have to learn how to mitigate the weaknesses simply because your (sub-)class doesn’t always has the optimal answer to everything. Carrying significant strengths as well as weaknesses with you takes far more skill than just being an all-rounder.

That’s the point I’d like to see you address, for now you’re only attacking a straw man.

my suggestion is not a new class, but instead, allow people to choose hybrid classes.

Seems like a novel idea but all it does is creating less diversity and making the differences between the classes more and more bland. DAUK would love it though. Even less ways to make wrong choices because you can be anything at all times.

[DarkangelUK]

Your failure is that you think having all the tools automatically means that you’re instantly a master at them. Classes themselves are already a specific niche as they are, you want to create even more niche models based on those classes. Round and round we go but hey lets humour your lack of vision once again shall we… someone that’s specialized in a specific area and purposely handicapping themselves in another means that all they’ll care about is their specific area of expertise, why would they want to get involved in their weakest area when they’re… weak in that area? “We need to attack? Bugger that, I’m kitted out for a support role!”. It’s hard enough getting people to do a specific role at a time of need without giving them even more reason to avoid it.You’re relying that every niche is catered for on the team before even knowing how the team is balanced out, and even then relying that said person that fills that role does what he needs to do coughBRINKcough… haven’t you already been called out on these ugly, unnecessary and unwanted dice roll scenarios? Have you mastered every role of your desired class and need additional perks to spice it up? I’m gonna say no, you haven’t, you’ve got room to build on any aspect you desire without faking it… stop being so damned lazy. Same old argument, same old massive glaring holes everywhere.

once again we’re victims of the tokajack!

[tokamak]

Did I get this right? Games like these are HARD enough without my system? You want things to be easier? Because that’s exactly what you propose. Making all choices available at all time, if you extend your reasoning further then you may as well do without all classes and make one uber class that can do everything. Something which isn’t much of a stretch considering the things you’ve been saying in the past. Limiting what’s available and forcing people to make choices raises the skill ceiling. People who understand the game better will find a way to deal with their self-imposed weaknesses and at the same time maximise their self-gained advantages. They will have a new way to exceed those who need to rely on having everything available to them when they need it because they can’t make up their mind.

And mind you, even for people like you there’s a place in that system. Nothing stops you from taking a bit of everything and have a really average build. It only means that because of that balance you won’t have access to the upgrades a the end of the tree, because those upgrades require commitment.

Have you mastered every role of your desired class and need additional perks to spice it up? I’m gonna say no, you haven’t,

Nor will I need to as some ways of playing simply don’t appeal to me. I like having a unique style that I can modify and develop further however I please. It’s that individual and personal feel to a play-style that I value and that’s why it’s in my interest not to have people be able to easily copy it or emulate it on a whim whenever it suits them.

[DarkangelUK]

This is captain of DarkangelUK’s point, we’re currently flying at 35,000 ft and if you look out your window you’ll see us flying over tokamak’s head.

I also find it quite amusing that you don’t understand your own system, that’s the best part.

[Rinimand]

Commander class like in Battlefield 2 or Natural Selection 2

[tokamak]

I’m proposing a simplified talent tree system like in WoW. The main difference is that rather than trees unlocking things straight away, they instead determine the rate at which you obtain them throughout a campaign. A player can have a specialised tree, then find out that there’s need for things outside his tree. He can get them but it will take more work than progressing within his tree.

Give me an afternoon and I’ll divide each class in three archetypes in which players can fully specialise and examples of characteristic perks. In a way it’s already quite similar to what Brink does. Brink however is not discriminate enough and gives the player so much choice that the choices become meaningless. That way the system only serves to get players slowly acquainted with the perks and not overwhelm them. The choices also really aren’t very path dependant apart from a few different tiers of the same upgrade. There’s a lot to gain here.

Once this stuff becomes more restrictive and intuitive (and really, look at the way WoW did it. even the first talent system was nice, but now they have made a lot more sophisticated and easy to use).

What this eventually gives us is deeper roles within the game. Why do we want that? Because it adds depth and narrative. Players need to figure out whether that incoming medic is a combat medic or a supply caddy. Some of it can be made out by visual cues, some of it simply needs to be observed by their actions. Adding a whole new meta game (supply medics tricking players into believing they’re combat medics by boldly storming forward). It evokes inventiveness and imagination in a player.

And yes this means that sometimes you’re in a role that isn’t fit for the situation. Tough. It’s compensated by being in a role that completely suits your situation, it’s your job to steer the matches into such a way that your advantages become relevant and your disadvantages become less relevant. It doesn’t need to determine the game either. There’s a chance that other players will catch it where you fall short and vice versa. And even if that doesn’t happen then all classes still have the base function that at least prevents a match from being impossible to complete. There’s no such thing as a ‘must-have’ on the specialisation tree.

Without this there’s no diversity. The classes will simply always be played in the right way at the right time simply because it’s a really as trivial a thing as fitting a square peg in a square hole. Yes, the act itself may still require skill, but nothing about a specialisation tree changes that. Whether it’s exclusively available through a specialisation or simply available to everyone playing that class, it still takes the same skill. In this system the difference is actually more pronounced due to the fact that the limited availability of such tools means that players who learn faster will enjoy the benefits more simply because there’s overall less opportunity to practice them due to not everyone in that class having that tool.

This means this system gives a wider scope in skill diversity than not having it. I’m still not sure what exactly your objection is, but it’s definitely not about skill difference.

[DarkangelUK]

We know, you’ve said it all before, in every other thread… just as before. Personally I think it’s a crap idea… just like before… and full of nonsense and made up statements to suit your pov… just like before.

[BioSnark]

Balance is another issue altogether. If the medic was nerfed all one would need to do is prioritise the medic on every engagement, and every push would be held pretty easily. The medic needs to be able to hold its own in combat, or the whole thing collapses.

Can we return to this point?

In etqw:
The medic has no trouble holding its own. The medic is the most consistently crucial class in the game. In infantry combat, there is almost never a class which is a more effective choice, aside from the need for objective and one covie&fops(which is not needed on strogg or on a gdf team which will /respawn). I think every decent player has a massively disproportionate amount of time spent as medic/tech. I don’t see how that isn’t a design problem in a class based game.

[DarkangelUK]

Seems to me that it’s purely down to self reliance, 2 things you need to keep trooping is health and ammo, and generally health runs out quicker than ammo. Being able to keep yourself topped up with health (GDF) or both (technician) means you don’t need anyone else for the task of killing. Removing the ability to self heal would solve that… and enrage quite a few in the process.

[SockDog]

A few choice points.

Making all choices available at all time, if you extend your reasoning further then you may as well do without all classes and make one uber class that can do everything.

They’re not available all the time. There is a penalty. You need to die/respawn. It’s not a huge penalty but one that ensures the choice being is both considered for the moment at hand and also allowing freedom to choose an adequate tactic. What you continue to propose is that by some witchcraft painting yourself into a corner and limiting your options is going to be overcome with skill. This is hard to do when the ability to use skill in the game has been tempered through the need to balance all those lovely perks and niches.

And mind you, even for people like you there’s a place in that system. Nothing stops you from taking a bit of everything and have a really average build. It only means that because of that balance you won’t have access to the upgrades a the end of the tree, because those upgrades require commitment.

Congratulations. Your solution is to create a build nobody is going to be happy using being in any situation it will be overpowered. Honestly, this is a terrible cop out.

Nor will I need to as some ways of playing simply don’t appeal to me. I like having a unique style that I can modify and develop further however I please. It’s that individual and personal feel to a play-style that I value and that’s why it’s in my interest not to have people be able to easily copy it or emulate it on a whim whenever it suits them.

You can do that through actually developing real skills without the need to impose some faux skill system in the game and all the baggage that comes with it. It’s like making Dom need a pilot class and skills in order to be deadly in the air rather than him being better because he actually is. It’s pretty saddening that you can dismiss player ability so easily, like it contributes nothing to the game.

Re topic: I’d like to see some sort of commander role if only to channel XP towards a team pool and take away the personal investment in upgrades. I understand this brings some other issues along with it, perhaps such a role could be scaled back so not to be so critical or simplified so that it’s not as brutal a learning curve. Maybe that would make it a poor choice for people though or worse it’d be so simple that each map would impose an expected path from the rest of the team. MMmm maybe just pool XP at a team level and unlock upgrades across all classes. Give the FOps an RTS view to drop supplies and distanced air strikes etc.

[Humate]

Can we return to this point?

Sure

In etqw:
The medic has no trouble holding its own. The medic is the most consistently crucial class in the game. In infantry combat, there is almost never a class which is a more effective choice, aside from the need for objective and one covie&fops(which is not needed on strogg or on a gdf team which will /respawn). I think every decent player has a massively disproportionate amount of time spent as medic/tech. I don’t see how that isn’t a design problem in a class based game.

Yes ofcourse, its designed to hold its own so that it can full-fill its traditional role.
Its combat efficiency, is in proportion with its importance to the team… and the enemy’s target priorities.
If the class was nerfed, it wouldnt stand a chance in direct engagements, which would urinate on the overall revive count.
Kind of ironic, given the discussion is about rambo medics

That said they could actually nerf the medic, boost the soldier’s combat capabilities and try and force a relationship b/w the two classes… but once the soldier deviates from its responsibility to protect the medic or… goes rambo, the medic will fall flat on its face. Its far better to leave the medic as the powerhouse it is, with the knowing that it will be played in multiple styles.

As for it being a problem… I dont have an issue with it.
But I do want to see matches, where class distribution isnt predictable, or lob-sided.

[Chris2]

Without this there’s no diversity. The classes will simply always be played in the right way at the right time simply because it’s a really as trivial a thing as fitting a square peg in a square hole. Yes, the act itself may still require skill, but nothing about a specialisation tree changes that. Whether it’s exclusively available through a specialisation or simply available to everyone playing that class, it still takes the same skill. In this system the difference is actually more pronounced due to the fact that the limited availability of such tools means that players who learn faster will enjoy the benefits more simply because there’s overall less opportunity to practice them due to not everyone in that class having that tool.

The diversity comes from different people judging what they think is best for a situation and applying their own knowledge to that situation, there is no one right way to play. An objective room with 3 team mates waiting to be revived surrounded by a couple of enemies, you are a lone medic, there are a number of ways to approach that situation, I’ll give 3.

1. Take out the enemies first as you suspect they’ve taken damage then revive the team.
2. Revive the team first as quick as you can so you now outnumber the enemy, even if you die in the process.
3. Fall back and wait for them to respawn and attack together.

Different people will think a different option is best for that situation depending on how they’ve already chosen to play the role of a medic, they don’t need a skill tree telling them how to play a certain way for the medic and giving them specific unlocks to help them along the way.

I’d be really pissed off if I couldn’t change from an “offensive engineer” to a “defensive engineer” in this deal with your choice system in a situation where the other engineers on my team are failing to defend the objective or we simply don’t have other engineers and because my “offensive engineer” sub-class doesn’t have mines or turrets available so I can’t do anything about it, silly me for thinking someone else would automatically fill in the gaps left by forcing me into an even more specific role.

[montheponies]

Stating the obvious, but without knowing the overall game design it’s difficult to suggest appropriate classes. For example, do vehicles play a large role, are we targeting pure pubfest or do we expect some kind of proper competitive skill based metagame to develop (cos that sure puts paid to skill trees and other unicorn rpg rubbish).

Personally if we’re restricting this to the original model of RTCW (and why wouldnt we) and it’s bastardised offspring of W:ET and (to a much much lesser extent) QW, then four classes are fine, any more is just making things up for the sake of it. One for health/revives (medic), one for ammo/support (lt), one for large scale/tactical weapons (soldier), one objective specialist (engineer). Please dont try to justify CovOps - just don’t…

Commander role in publics is typically atrocious and for competitive games would most likely be a complete waste of time - as someone said BF2 had it, didnt make a stellar return in BF3…As for countering rambo medics, just look at how TF2 works - no rambo meds there, in fact not many folk playing med at all (unless they are enlightened). Personally leave the rambo med alone, some class will always end up making up the bulk of the team, just as long as it doesnt lead to no one at all playing the other classes it’s fine.

The main thing is to keep the game, classes and weapons relatively simple and easy to get, but as mentioned by others hard to master - not by dint of grind or skill trees or any other false differentiators. Just make it truly skill based with a level playing field each time - you dont see folk running onto the football field with hydraulic leg extenders or powered tennis rackets - for a very good reason - really becomes hard to balance.

That said if you insist on having another class how about Paratrooper - speciality able to spawn anywhere on the map provided it’s over open ground. can be seen and shot though. Typically used as a commando role, could even roll some of the covops functions into the class just to make it more gay.

[YouAreGood]

[QUOTE=Humate;408321]Sure
Yes ofcourse, its designed to hold its own so that it can full-fill its traditional role.
Its combat efficiency, is in proportion with its importance to the team… and the enemy’s target priorities.
If the class was nerfed, it wouldnt stand a chance in direct engagements, which would urinate on the overall revive count.
[/QUOTE]

Well, as the non-rambo medic I would look for some ppl to be around… about the number of revives. I guess it will be increased then, as medic would not be that powerful… what still does not mean it would have no chance in combat, as well as soldier does not have 200 hp, medic’s MP would not make 1 damage/hit… It would be still playable for that “selfish” style ppl, yet it would have not only the advantages. Why shall it beat any other class in real combat? Paper, scissors, stone and medic? Being weaker in combat, it would be more prone to stick with the rest of the team, right where it’s needed.

The current approach - second chance in combat at no cost - is not contributing to the game’s balance improvement

About the space of possible classes… I guess we should start calling it like that… I agree with the argument, that what should make the difference is who plays the game, not what bunch of perks that person would buy for XP or whatever. As I said before - clear, easy interface and the deepness coming out of the in-game possibilities, not from some “artificial” perks. Trick-jump shall be trick, not perk. Aim shall be aim, not bot points to buy for XP. Why XP whoring should make the difference?

montheponies
Nice post. Excluding rambo apology, and attack on CvOps, I agree. The game should be simple in use, and where it have to get complicated is it’s battlefield, where bunch of simple classes with their gadgets combined forms the fairly complicated situation, no need for players spending time in the forest of perks and “skill-points”… That;s kind of things that sounds cool yet in practice they’re just not.

[Humate]

Well, as the non-rambo medic I would look for some ppl to be around… about the number of revives. I guess it will be increased then, as medic would not be that powerful… what still does not mean it would have no chance in combat, as well as soldier does not have 200 hp, medic’s MP would not make 1 damage/hit… It would be still playable for that “selfish” style ppl, yet it would have not only the advantages. Why shall it beat any other class in real combat? Paper, scissors, stone and medic? Being weaker in combat, it would be more prone to stick with the rest of the team, right where it’s needed.

Im having trouble understanding your post… but ill try and explain my post in another way.

IF the medic is reduced to a role of simply healing / reviving and chip damage… merely to remove rambo medics, then the players that will rage the most will be the non-rambo medics. They will be a priority target, to prevent revives.

[YouAreGood]

[QUOTE=Humate;408332]Im having trouble understanding your post… but ill try and explain my post in another way.

IF the medic is reduced to a role of simply healing / reviving and chip damage… merely to remove rambo medics, then the players that will rage the most will be the non-rambo medics. They will be a priority target, to prevent revives.[/QUOTE]

That’s partially why I’d like to see Nurse class instead of medic. Smaller hit area is the answer, as well as not that much lower effectiveness. As CvOps excels in long range, and sux in short, medic would be powerful class in bunch of teammates and would be weak alone.

Also medic still get an edge on medium distance, as it can hide and heal-up himself, while his say engineer interlocutor cannot. It won’t be a weak class, it would just have both positive and negative sides. It would not be overpowered.

[Dthy]

…As CvOps excels in long range, and sux in short

CvOps doesn’t suck at close quarters. Just takes a particular play style to excel at it.

EDIT:

To expand on that, no class sucks, just need a particular play style to excel at it.

[YouAreGood]

CvOps doesn’t suck at close quarters. Just takes a particular play style to excel at it.

Damage per second is what I’m looking at as far as assault rifle is concerned. And about sniper rifle… well, I don’t think most of ppl can use it in close combat without lag-exploit-with-no-scope-yet-surprisingly-accurate-shot, or even with it.

EDIT:

And at the ending chapter of the plan you meet the Rambo right on top of the med-packs hill… We really should let him have a bit less firepower :).

[BioSnark]

[QUOTE=Humate;408321]Yes ofcourse, its designed to hold its own so that it can full-fill its traditional role.
Its combat efficiency, is in proportion with its importance to the team… and the enemy’s target priorities.
If the class was nerfed, it wouldnt stand a chance in direct engagements, which would urinate on the overall revive count.
Kind of ironic, given the discussion is about rambo medics

Its far better to leave the medic as the powerhouse it is, with the knowing that it will be played in multiple styles.[/QUOTE]
That last line is the issue. The point isn’t that it holds it’s own. The point is that it goes far beyond other classes in that ability, except for the soldier in firepower. That there is such a thing as a rambo medic is purely down to the fact that the class has limited or no team reliance (can replenish both ammo and health. Tech can respawn near combat with full everything.), as opposed to all other classes. Having a medic become team reliant would bring it in line with every other class, not destroy it.

My suggestions are to remove ammo regen from the class, more successfully implement ammo limitations, and impose a gameplay significant cooldown interval between when the class can pick up its own med kits.

The fact that I can duck away from any mid range firefight I’m not clearly winning to med and stroy up (or is that down?) and them beat my opponent over the head with my health bar indicates a game design flaw. The fact that I feel clever doing this indicates that I’m a sadistic asshole, but that’s another matter.

---

Oh, I had another suggestion along the lines of how much I hate the current field ops role and think it should have more of a command and logistical support role. While removing the stupid artillery deployables, obviously, along with the idea of APT’s, let them laser target things to support other classes. For instance, when they laser target a ground location, that would give mortars (engineers) an arc-adjusted hud reticle to hit the location. When they target a vehicle, soldier’s would get a decoy-proof missile lock. Maybe the projectile would have to fly slower so the vehicle has a realistic evade option. Also, let the target be targetable by AVT’s beyond their standard targeting range. I believe I already mentioned this class should take on the role of forward spawning, rather than techs.