DIRTY BOMB UPDATE: Version 17437

(tokamak) #301

Nobody is suggesting a ‘this class beats that class’ approach. Classes are more than just their offensive abilities. Who is going to beat ‘healing’? Who is going to beat ‘supplying ammo’ or ‘scouting’? There are no counters to this, they’re just very strong roles players can take to be a benefit to their team.

However, once SD wants to delve further into F2P content and thus more class specialisations then yes, you can’t avoid having niches with their own strengths and weaknesses, and then yes, you can also not avoid that some fare better against some than others.

And this is already happening in DB. A shotgun isn’t going to do anything against a sniper on long range. RPS right there. That’s what tactical shooters are all about. If you don’t like that then you’re best of playing Shootmania or QL instagib.

(ImageOmega) #302

[QUOTE=Tast1c;436731]I think the RPS element has still better use in other genres, than in a FPS. The better aimer, brainer should win simple. I mean RPS is good for rpgs or rts, but thats a different story. If i didnt want influence my character directly… i would play Starcraft 2 or some other non FPS game.
Only game i enjoy with RPS elements in a shooter is Nuclear Dawn FPS/RTS hybrid. Thats my point^^[/QUOTE]

I agree with Tast1c here. I remember in Planetside 1 (barely touched 2) playing as a lighter armored character and being able to take out heavy armored players. I won because I had superior tactics and aim. This was the most gratifying feeling for me. The heavy, on paper, should win the engagement, but my superior “skills” gave me the opportunity to win every time. This is why I keep going back to saying just make headshot damage a little more even across the board and you still get classes who should win on paper, but the influence of a player’s abilities to aim would let him win the engagement. Why would we punish a player for being good just because he needs to fill a role? I play medic often times because my team needs me too. I can out aim the majority of a pub team I join, but don’t punish me because I have to fill a role. Give me the capability to win any engagement, but I understand if a heavy mows me down or a sniper headshots me, or an engy point blank blasts my melon.

This whole discussion is turning pointless and into theory crafting. I can see why Anti and the rest of Splash Damage really use Echo to balance the game and take a look at real scenarios as they unfold in that gorgeous top down overlay.

(tokamak) #303

Not even that. Posts aren’t being read so people are rebuking fictional points here.

NOBODY wants RPS, please try to at least entertain the notion that class distinction is more than that.

(ImageOmega) #304

[QUOTE=tokamak;436760]Not even that. Posts aren’t being read so people are rebuking fictional points here.

NOBODY wants RPS, please try to at least entertain the notion that class distinction is more than that.[/QUOTE]

I did in my other posts if you read them. =]

(warbie) #305

Aren’t skills enough to define a class alone? Sure, weapons are going to be different and that’s ok, as long as the gap in power isn’t too large, but where’s the harm in trying to keep the combat as even as possible? Especially when the benefits of this - despite everything else this is a fps first and everything else second - are that obvious. The Q3 influence was every bit as important in making RTCW and ET great as the classes and objectives. More so I’d argue.

(tokamak) #306

The harm in trying to keep combat as even as possible is that it waters down the roles of the teams. If you water this down then the game will end up being a series of disconnected duels. I understand that some people really get a thrill out of those duels but if that’s all DB Has to offer then it’s going to fail, hard.

There’s nothing wrong with having one superior combat class, three average combat classes and one inferior combat class. It deepens the roles players take on themselves and it enhances the value of working together.

And not in the same way Brink did. In Brink the classes actually didn’t really matter that much, it was just that the long TTK and high spread combined made superior numbers always win. Oh and on that note, I liked Brink on the consoles but I agree that on a PC with much higher fidelity, individual player potential has to be very high, not just through combat, but also through the way the player can act in it’s class role.

(maxxxxlol) #307

How does it water down the roles?

(tokamak) #308

First of all there’s nothing else a soldier can be good at. Secondly, if you make an engineer less dependant on his team then completing the objective will be less of a team-effort. In the end this game is about getting the objective class in position to do his thing or to stop others from doing so. That’s what this game is actually all about, it’s not about running through corridors and having little dance-duels whenever you see someone else. It’s about a concerted effort to achieve a single goal.

I have no issue with the field ops, medic and covert being on par with each other. This means that with the soldier being the highest tier, the medic,field and covert being the middle tier and the engineer being the lowest tier you’ve already made a system where each class is as distinct as possible.

(warbie) #309

[QUOTE=tokamak;436765]The harm in trying to keep combat as even as possible is that it waters down the roles of the teams. If you water this down then the game will end up being a series of disconnected duels. I understand that some people really get a thrill out of those duels but if that’s all DB Has to offer then it’s going to fail, hard.

There’s nothing wrong with having one superior combat class, three average combat classes and one inferior combat class. It deepens the roles players take on themselves and it enhances the value of working together.

And not in the same way Brink did. In Brink the classes actually didn’t really matter that much, it was just that the long TTK and high spread combined made superior numbers always win. Oh and on that note, I liked Brink on the consoles but I agree that on a PC with much higher fidelity, individual player potential has to be very high, not just through combat, but also through the way the player can act in it’s class role.[/QUOTE]

How does it water things down? Engies will still be building and blowing things up, medics still healing. Pigeonholing how we play each class in this way only reduces the player’s options. Not as extreme as in TF2, but on that scale. Take the inferior combat class in your example. How is the game more fun or interesting for someone playing that class? They’ll have to constantly be cautious, hang around the back, rely on team mates to dig them out of trouble etc. The thing is, with even classes and over the course of a map, every class will likely have occasion to play in that way. Everything that’s interesting about having to hide or sneak about every class gets to do every time - but they also have to option to play in other ways too. I honestly think that skewing the combat effectiveness between classes only makes for a more one dimensional game as all it really does it take away choice from the player.

(maxxxxlol) #310

I don’t see how team work magically stops working when it’s even shooting wise. Also soldier carries 2 primary weapons, conc grenades and 2 normal nades, he’s got it pretty good already imo.

(warbie) #311

Agreed. And that’s because it doesn’t. RTCW is still the best example of a class and objective based fps, especially when it comes to interplay between classes, and the only difference between them is the skills they have (other than the Panzer of course. In this case his weapon is the skill/role).

Engineers should be cautious because they’re needed to complete the objective and play smart accordingly. But if the **** hits the fan they have the option to go postal and try and fix their problems with a gun. This is the way it should be, not by reducing their hp and giving them a lesser weapon, or other contrived mechanics that force them into playing a certain way.

(Kendle) #312

Agree, but DB is nowhere near that unfortunately.

In RTCW a Med starts with a full mag + a clip and absolutely needs an Lt. to keep him going. In DB he starts with a full mag + 2 clips and gets free ammo from racks.

RTCW has no health regen, so everyone needs Medics, in DB you just wait in a corner for a few seconds to get your health back, Medics not required.

In RTCW you get punished for dying, especially if you miss the next spawn. DB does not have wave respawn on defense (where it would actually matter) and you’re not dead long anyway, so no real benefit putting the other guy down and gibbing, and no real reward for good Meds to put themselves on the line trying to revive under fire.

DB discourages teamwork by allowing it not to be needed, presumably in the name of “making the game accessible”. That was how Radho justified Brink, look how that turned out.

However we are where we are, rose tinted glasses are not helping here. DB has a plethora of weapons, it has multiple classes and loadouts, the longer we keep ignoring that the longer it will be before they start working.

Currently it’s that plethora of weapons that are providing the only true class distinction. Either that remains the case or something else needs to do it instead, like removing ammo racks, removing health regen, adding wave respawn, increasing spawn times, forcing classes to NEED each other and punishing them if they don’t work together.

(Hundopercent) #313

[QUOTE=tokamak;436765]The harm in trying to keep combat as even as possible is that it waters down the roles of the teams. If you water this down then the game will end up being a series of disconnected duels. I understand that some people really get a thrill out of those duels but if that’s all DB Has to offer then it’s going to fail, hard.

There’s nothing wrong with having one superior combat class, three average combat classes and one inferior combat class. It deepens the roles players take on themselves and it enhances the value of working together.

And not in the same way Brink did. In Brink the classes actually didn’t really matter that much, it was just that the long TTK and high spread combined made superior numbers always win. Oh and on that note, I liked Brink on the consoles but I agree that on a PC with much higher fidelity, individual player potential has to be very high, not just through combat, but also through the way the player can act in it’s class role.[/QUOTE]

No it doesnt… each class still has its role and isn’t locked to playing the game a certain way. Who the hell wants to play a class that just sits behind walls and heals or does objectives and when no one is around just runs away hoping to find a teammate that has the ability to kill players. I almost fell asleep typing about it.

(warbie) #314

Agreed. I think had we started with RTCW as a solid foundation and built on it things would have been much easier. As it is we started on a wobbly foundation and things are waving about everyone time a tweak gets made. Ironically, a lot of these decisions have been made in the name of accessibility and not scaring new players away, but DB is a far scarier and more confusing place than RTCW ever was (strafe jumping included!)

I think it would be good to go back to basics and get the core interplay between classes sorted and add a few maps with choke points that encourage pushing/defending as a team. I’ve still yet to see teams moving and working together in DB. Once that’s done we can go crazy with new skills and weapons and see what works.

(tokamak) #315

If you keep misconstruing my words I will eventually assume that you’re simply not here for a constructive discussion. I love this subject and I’m willing to discuss this at length but in order for that to happen we will have to acknowledge each other’s points rather than having a go at strawmen.

(INF3RN0) #316

Well not to defend anyone or anything first of all, but there are actually a lot more people than you might think that lean more towards being more supportive with a class or simply want to play it more to directly support the team instead focusing on getting as many kills as possible; and all the middle ground between the two extremes. I personally am a player who would rather have as much shooting ability as I can get, however I know there’s still a lot of players that put most of their energy into supporting the players on their team that get all the kills simply because they are sub-par shooters.

Aiming and playing a class well/smartly are two different skill sets in my view, and although I would say most really good players can both kill and play their class for the team- I think both should be able to co-exist and be available as options. I’d like to be able to offer those types of players the opportunity to play the game like they want as well, and having thought a lot about it I can’t entirely see a problem by it. First and foremost I want the classic feel, but I can only see offering a balanced pallet making the game more interesting and satisfying everyone from the newbie to the hardcore player. I’d never expect or want a support-only style team to beat one that could aim and play well as a team of course just as much as I wouldn’t want classes to feel non-important, but the idea itself might be worth some consideration for the general public.

I have to go back and mention the mastery tree even though I’ll probably get named called for it. Try not to think of it as simple or comparable to that of a MOBA or that, but instead imagine a system that allows for tweaking a class very slightly to fit a more specific style of play. I’m completely against a means of empowering people to become better simply by clicking some buttons before a game fyi. If your all about out-aiming then you might want to sacrifice your abilities for more reliant shooting and vice versa. In the end putting all your chips on one thing is going to hurt your team, but it really allows for a lot more user control and opportunity for every type of player. In the end a good middle ground would be the best thing to focus on mastering and should win every time, however the opportunities still exist and might allow less able players in one category to bring at least some worth to their team (though it won’t get them close to the maximum output). Again I don’t really care if this is considered or not because I’m only thinking of it for the general interest of the game and it might be a terrible idea; I’d totally play RTCW2/ET2/etc. Right now I just think everything is worth discussing before we come up with nothing and end up getting no where.

(Valdez) #317

[QUOTE=Kendle;436783]Agree, but DB is nowhere near that unfortunately.

In RTCW a Med starts with a full mag + a clip and absolutely needs an Lt. to keep him going. In DB he starts with a full mag + 2 clips and gets free ammo from racks.

RTCW has no health regen, so everyone needs Medics, in DB you just wait in a corner for a few seconds to get your health back, Medics not required.

In RTCW you get punished for dying, especially if you miss the next spawn. DB does not have wave respawn on defense (where it would actually matter) and you’re not dead long anyway, so no real benefit putting the other guy down and gibbing, and no real reward for good Meds to put themselves on the line trying to revive under fire.

DB discourages teamwork by allowing it not to be needed, presumably in the name of “making the game accessible”. That was how Radho justified Brink, look how that turned out.

However we are where we are, rose tinted glasses are not helping here. DB has a plethora of weapons, it has multiple classes and loadouts, the longer we keep ignoring that the longer it will be before they start working.

Currently it’s that plethora of weapons that are providing the only true class distinction. Either that remains the case or something else needs to do it instead, like removing ammo racks, removing health regen, adding wave respawn, increasing spawn times, forcing classes to NEED each other and punishing them if they don’t work together.[/QUOTE]

This guy has it all figured out, just listen to him.

(nailzor) #318

[QUOTE=Kendle;436783]Agree, but DB is nowhere near that unfortunately.

In RTCW a Med starts with a full mag + a clip and absolutely needs an Lt. to keep him going. In DB he starts with a full mag + 2 clips and gets free ammo from racks.

RTCW has no health regen, so everyone needs Medics, in DB you just wait in a corner for a few seconds to get your health back, Medics not required.

In RTCW you get punished for dying, especially if you miss the next spawn. DB does not have wave respawn on defense (where it would actually matter) and you’re not dead long anyway, so no real benefit putting the other guy down and gibbing, and no real reward for good Meds to put themselves on the line trying to revive under fire.

DB discourages teamwork by allowing it not to be needed, presumably in the name of “making the game accessible”. That was how Radho justified Brink, look how that turned out.

However we are where we are, rose tinted glasses are not helping here. DB has a plethora of weapons, it has multiple classes and loadouts, the longer we keep ignoring that the longer it will be before they start working.

Currently it’s that plethora of weapons that are providing the only true class distinction. Either that remains the case or something else needs to do it instead, like removing ammo racks, removing health regen, adding wave respawn, increasing spawn times, forcing classes to NEED each other and punishing them if they don’t work together.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Med’s only spawned with 1 clip, no reserve actually - so they only had 30/32 bullets without an LT. And as you touched on, an LT would not regen HP, so it absolutely needed to have a medic near by.

Little stuff like this is a must, and it is the most simple part of an FPS game. Prior to the popularity of Halo/COD, HP regen was not near as popular or widely seen as it is now - I prefer no HP regen (but it’s OK on a medic - that makes sense to me).

Having ammo bins all over the place, health regen for every single class detracts from this basic element of team play on pubs and comp too.

(Caerid) #319

Agree with this as well. The root problem is that the simple class distinctions are made trivial by how DB is setup with health regen, ammo racks etc and instead of addressing that issue we’re trying to find that distinction through combat effectiveness.

The game at its core needs to be simple. Once you got that down you can then start adding layers to it without it falling apart. Don’t mistake simple for accessibility. Knowing that a medic can heal is simple, Health Regen is an accessible feature. We really need to get rid of the accessibility features, if you have a simple core, that in itself makes the game accessible.

I think part of the issue is that SD is trying to balance/tweak too many components at the same time (movement/gunplay, class/class interaction, maps, and weapons.) That they never line up right. Atm it just feels like its trying to be everything and does not have that focus that it needs.

(Hundopercent) #320

It isn’t even about KDR. It’s about having the capability to kill someone when the time is needed which, believe it or not, in a FPS is quite ****ing often.

Anyway, we are all right. Their needs to be a decision on the type of game this is going to be before moving forward. I will have no issue selling off this account and moving to another game if it’s going to be like TF2. Their are people that like that style and but I am not one of them.

Also, Kendle is 100% correct.