[QUOTE=tokamak;436683]That’s funny because I was about to use TF2 for contrast. You’re talking about R/P/S here and TF2 would be the perfect example of a R/P/S shooter. Pyro beats spy, heavy beats scout, soldier or sniper beats heavy yadda yadda. And that’s okay in that context because just like say, WoW, each class is defined by their combat role rather, they don’t have a meta role in the same way as in ET.
In a SD game, combat IS a role, just like ‘objective’ is a role and ‘healing’ and ‘logistics’ and ‘recon’ are roles. They are all roles that transcend combat. There are no hard-counters at all. There’s no ‘this class beats this class’ because the roles serve something more important than just nailing frags.
Your concern for RPS reveals a distrust in the notion that a shooter can be about more than just fragging.
Let’s roll with your example. 3 soldiers and 2 medics beat four ‘light’ classes in defense. Aside from the fact that you’re already starting with having the attackers outnumber the defenders, you’re also showing the ultimate example of a perfectly concerted laser-focused piece of teamwork to come down on an underprepared defense, and ASIDE from the fact that I see no reason why a counter effort of 3 soldiers and 2 medics having exactly 50% chance of beating their counterparts, let’s just see what other assumptions you’re making:
The question we then want to ask is: “Should this be rewarded or not?” In my view I’d say, yes, having 5 people employing a relatively complex and organised tactic should be really hard to beat by 4 players. In a competition setting this would be the full team being absolutely organised.
Should they always win? No. Of course not. This isn’t Brink. But a good aimer trumping five players making a well-organised attempt shouldn’t happen either.The current response is to make the class difference trivial, that way you just get 4 players against 5 players which makes you win, say, 60-80% of the time with aiming skill being the biggest determining factor. It’s by far the easiest way to solve this problem and it’s also the quickest road to making DB a thirteen in a dozen shooter.
If it’s truly that easy to keep a soldier revived while he’s doing an irreversible objective then it’s obvious there’s something wrong with the objective. The soldier being consistently revived is not the problem, in fact, consistently revived soldiers is something that should be encouraged rather than nerfed.[/QUOTE]
That was a real scenario not fake and it was 4v5 vs Lts because Euros run sweepers and Lts. It’s the only thing I could base it off of. So it’s not a made up scenario or anything it’s just how it’s played.
I’m sort of done talking about this because we’re going back and forth with no real progress and I’m just exhausted about it but I thought I would leave this here because this pretty much expresses exactly how I feel.
Up to 5:11
“Small in scope, epic in gameplay” - Apply this and you got a winner from me and I’m sure a lot of other players.
I’m using TF2 as an example just because I find the game to be very simple yet the art style is fun and the gameplay is rock solid. Though I’m not a fan of it I can’t discredit it as a good game and still today it has a healthy population of players - 55,574 avg 65,653 peak Team Fortress 2. Simple game, awesome gameplay.
