Community Question: Spread vs Recoil

(Dthy) #201

I don’t want to die just because of random spread. No randomness please.

(Smurfer) #202

I wasn’t talking to you.

(tokamak) #203

That would depend on the size of their target audience.

(Humate) #204

[QUOTE=Dormamu;404906]What is the SD Staff opinion on this?
Btw Badman this polls are a two way street, it would be better if you guys would join more in this conversations/polls.This way you can steer the conversations on the parts you are really interested and make it more engaging for everyone. Making those polls more interactive can buy you more time for your Unannounced project and bring in more benefits for you/us/trolls :D[/QUOTE]

Its time to play… Guess SD’s response:
[ ] Locki said no
[ ] We are too busy making Brink 2
[ ] It could potentially give away too much info on our “Secret Game”
[x] CBF

(tangoliber) #205

Well, they don’t really get a choice in that, if it is going to be a f2p game. The model demands them to come up with as many guns as possible.

Personally, I like minimalist arsenals. But I’m glad the game is going f2p for other reasons.

(SockDog) #206

Not so sure on the whole gold rush to F2P games. There is only so much time and money people can invest in games, yet the impression seems to be that there is zero competition for this resource. It’s made doubly worse IMO that to do this the game also needs to be mangled and deformed to support such things as 2000 gun variations rather than simply being an excellent game.

(tokamak) #207

The only downside to 2000 gun variation is the development cost. Still I don’t think there are as many interested in a large array of guns in the same way there are people in a large array of historic tank models (which have far more character than guns).

But yeah I’m interested in a thread about F2P systems. Would be fun.

(SockDog) #208

You don’t think the willingness to stretch variables to distinguish said guns and hence this thread is damaging to the game at all? (rhetorical question btw)

(Ashog) #209

To the topic:

I suppose I differentiate weapons by spread because higher recoil is something I can control and can even live with in most cases (because higher recoil usually comes together with some other positive weapon buffs, e.g. higher damage, lower spread, etc.).

As for the suggestions to what weapon system is best, I can only recite Humate and say that ETQW did it best. There is really no point to invent a bicycle and destroy the excellent system which was achieved in ETQW … EXCEPT for the spread. The perfect balance is the one obtained in ETQWPro and that should be the standard of how the weapon balance for a game like ETQW should be done.

The most wonderful and sekseh features that ETQW (and some even W:ET) had were prolonged 1vs1 fights thanks to the lower main weapon damage and higher healths and movement speeds; iron sights allowing for decreased spread, almost no recoil on main weapons, low spread on main weapons, medium rate of fire. All of these in combination is what makes a real FPS game for me and allows for skill-driven aiming and non-2-shots-1-kill fights.
I simply wouldn’t even think nowadays about playing those 2-shots-1-kill camping and backraping games as CS, CoD series and such. This gameplay is just not interesting anymore after ETQW - too short fights, too powerful weapons.

There is only one thing SD can do seriously wrong next time, now after Brink’s spread failed it. The wrong thing is if SD destroys the prolonged aimskill-oriented fights, which are what SD is famous for.

Remember that the biggest fun in an FPS game is a full and easy control of the (main) weapon. But this control should not lead to instakills in 0.5 seconds (when not landing 3 headshots in a row, just as an example).

But even if all above feels right, nothing can help a game to be even moderately successful if it has as terrible netcode and hit-detection as ETQW had (but I guess SD is done with idtech engines for the time being).

Can’t wait and only hope for what SD announces as their next game.

(tokamak) #210

I don’t see the danger in that. Raven Shield and Borderlands manage just fine with heaps of guns. It’s redundant, sure, but not damaging.

(BioSnark) #211

Having many weapons that are not well delineated adds ambiguity on both sides of a firefight. There is a lot to be said for having clearly identifiable rules in a game so that players can quickly assess a situation. If you want lots of guns, you need benefits that outweigh this gameplay cost.

(tangoliber) #212

A year ago, the f2p prospects look pretty grim. But I think the market is wide-open right now, that people have gotten burned out from Tribes: Ascend, and Firefall’s PvP is disappointing in beta.

I see it like this… TF2 pretty much encompasses the potential f2p FPS population…it is the bank of f2p players. Some 50-100k daily players. A huge portion of regular TF2 players are not of the mindset that they are going to stick with TF2 no matter what. They try new f2p games, and return to TF2 after a while. It is highly unlikely that an upcoming f2p game will attract TF2 numbers…but Tribes: Ascend’s measly 4k-5k players a day is probably enough to justify the business model. Most well-made f2p games should be able to get a loan of 5k daily players from the TF2 “bank”, and can likely hold onto that population for as long as new content is coming out.

I don’t like the weapon/item overload. I think it would be refreshing to see a game that only sells more significant items, for a higher price. My idea has always been that Splash Damage provides a basic medic,soldier,spy,engineer for free… and then sells alternate versions of those classes for 8-12 dollars a piece. Each version would have a unique skin, unique primary, unique secondary, and unique abilities. In addition to the standard medic, you might have options for getting a poison medic, or a tech medic (heavy bodytype with abilities like health regen unit or dispensers.) The basic four classes would be balanced to be the most popular in competition, but the alternate classes would provide alternate playstyles, even if they are slightly weaker.

(Boktor) #213

I agree 100%

The more experienced you are with the gameplay, the better sense you have of (for example) when you’re able to survive firefights or when you have a chance of escape. Too many “similar, but not exactly the same” type weapons will water this sense down. I can see this being frustrating to players.

(SockDog) #214

[QUOTE=tangoliber;404952]A year ago, the f2p prospects look pretty grim. But I think the market is wide-open right now, that people have gotten burned out from Tribes: Ascend, and Firefall’s PvP is disappointing in beta.

I see it like this… TF2 pretty much encompasses the potential f2p FPS population…it is the bank of f2p players. Some 50-100k daily players. A huge portion of regular TF2 players are not of the mindset that they are going to stick with TF2 no matter what. They try new f2p games, and return to TF2 after a while. It is highly unlikely that an upcoming f2p game will attract TF2 numbers…but Tribes: Ascend’s measly 4k-5k players a day is probably enough to justify the business model. Most well-made f2p games should be able to get a loan of 5k daily players from the TF2 “bank”, and can likely hold onto that population for as long as new content is coming out.

I don’t like the weapon/item overload. I think it would be refreshing to see a game that only sells more significant items, for a higher price. My idea has always been that Splash Damage provides a basic medic,soldier,spy,engineer for free… and then sells alternate versions of those classes for 8-12 dollars a piece. Each version would have a unique skin, unique primary, unique secondary, and unique abilities. In addition to the standard medic, you might have options for getting a poison medic, or a tech medic (heavy bodytype with abilities like health regen unit or dispensers.) The basic four classes would be balanced to be the most popular in competition, but the alternate classes would provide alternate playstyles, even if they are slightly weaker.[/QUOTE]

People are burned out already? I thought this model was meant to be a sustainable and long term service rather than the traditional 6 month cycle. If that’s the case why even bother junking up the game with this fancy and that distraction. Would seem far better to focus on making it accessible and moddable and so drive continued use and grow through traditional sales.

In regards to the F2P market size. I’d say it’s probably a lot larger than 50-100k peak players yet even if you spread this over the number of products in or coming to market and that is a lot of competition. Just on Steam alone there are how many F2P shooters? This is on a platform with TF2. I don’t deny there is money there, I just worry many developers are running at this all with arms open (as they did with consoles), shouting from the hills how this is where the fortunes are made.

Again, to bring this back on topic with the above in mind. I’d be concerned that SD are throwing away what makes their games unique in an effort to appeal to a wider audience or fit in a certain market. Do they really need 100-1000 versions of a shotgun in game? What are the pros and cons? For me I find an unending wall of weapons and choices to be made prior to playing an obnoxious barrier to entry, one that ultimately has little bearing on the actual game. Because if the 100 shotguns did vary to a great extent then really you’d only need one from the start, middle and end? The rest being inconsequential, cosmetic and again just a barrier to making the decision of which is the best shotgun.

(tokamak) #215

The thing with the F2P market size is that you don’t really know what people end up playing the game. The low entry point gives access to people who think a full priced game is too risky.