Idea? Expanding Class Meta Passively

(INF3RN0) #1

I want to first be clear I’m very neutral on this concept before I introduce it, but I think it could be another method of having class distinction without taking the route of hard class counters.

The main idea here is passive team buffs based on class distribution and maintaining a very close balance between classes at a base level. Every class would be able to kill the other 50/50 for the most part based on how abilities were balanced with weaponry of course. And to prevent stacking of bonuses, there would be a max cap per class. This was present in ETQW and ET I believe.

Here’s some examples of how it could work (just my thoughts), but keep in mind these things would only offer incremental advantages. Also NOTE that all bonuses would not apply to the class that provided them, but only to the rest of their team. Again negating the incentive for singular class stacking. My numbers might be too insignificantly small in some areas or the examples too gimmicky, but just some brain storming anyway.

Medic
-10% hp regen speed boost per medic (caps at 3 medics, 30%)
or
-5hp bonus per medic (caps at 2 medics, +10hp)
or
-Reduced auto regen start time 10% per medic (caps at 2 medics, 20%)
or


FOPS
-Increases max clips by 1 (caps at 2 fops, 2 clips)
or
-Increases weapon clip size by 4 (caps at 2 fops, 8 extra ammo)
or

Soldier
-Increases grenade blast radius by 5% (caps at 2 soldiers, 10%)
or
-Decreases reload time by 5% (caps at 2 soldiers, 10%)
or

Engineer
-Decreases ability cooldowns by 5% (caps at 2 engineers, 10%)
or

Recon
-Decreases objective interaction time (plant/defuse/hack/pickup/transmit/repair/etc) by 10-15% (caps at 1 recon)
or

So again to be clear this is just a random idea for discussion and a few thoughts I had on it. I’d rather hear what people think of the general idea overall as it was done already before. Like I said earlier, I don’t really have a stance on it myself, but I can see it adding some interesting dynamics to class distribution. My main concern would for the bonuses to only provide very incremental bonuses so that you wouldn’t necessarily feel forced to always run a specific class distribution, but enough that they didn’t feel entirely gimmicky. Obviously you would never be able to maximize bonuses in all areas either with only 5-8 players as well and the bonuses wouldn’t apply to the classes providing them, so the variety in decisions would be there.

(Hundopercent) #2

As you stated the numbers are so small it isn’t really doing or changing much of anything other than making it mandatory to have at a minimum of one LT for the extra clip.

Do you have to be next to these people for the bonuses? If not, medics would get considerably stronger with 1 Lt.

In all, I think this is a poor suggestion/idea that would need more to it to make it worth implementing.

(rand0m) #3

The fact of the matter is nothing is ever going to be done to make everyone happy.

(HellToupee) #4

They tried this sort of thing with brink with the arrays of buffs and such to make up for the lack of any actual need for the various classes, it didn’t work because it just winds up too complex to keep track of and inconsistent game play due to the differences between fully buffed up players and the base.

It worked in rtcw/et because it was simple, no LT no ammo, no medic no health, no soldier no big guns and no engineer you lose.

(INF3RN0) #5

[QUOTE=strychzilla;451167]As you stated the numbers are so small it isn’t really doing or changing much of anything other than making it mandatory to have at a minimum of one LT for the extra clip.

Do you have to be next to these people for the bonuses? If not, medics would get considerably stronger with 1 Lt.

In all, I think this is a poor suggestion/idea that would need more to it to make it worth implementing.[/QUOTE]

Yea for sure. Those were just my first thoughts, but definitely not specific things that I’d want per say; just brain storming. All of the potential bonuses would need to be equally attractive enough and balanced so that you might have a huge list of combinations for any situation that would be equally viable. The idea overall is that sure you could just get an extra clip on medics, but then miss out on all of the other possible bonuses if you ran yet another class instead, which of course would benefit from the medic’s bonuses as a non-medic.

If anything I can see some of the weaker ability classes benefiting from passive bonuses over stuff like stronger turrets/mines/etc as a means of equalizing in the long run.

[QUOTE=HellToupee;451172]They tried this sort of thing with brink with the arrays of buffs and such to make up for the lack of any actual need for the various classes, it didn’t work because it just winds up too complex to keep track of and inconsistent game play due to the differences between fully buffed up players and the base.

It worked in rtcw/et because it was simple, no LT no ammo, no medic no health, no soldier no big guns and no engineer you lose.[/QUOTE]

Brink did a really bad job at trying to expand on the idea. They turned the passives into flat rate bonus that was hugely necessary (HP, damage, armor, etc). An example of what it was like in ETQW for example having 4 medics on your team granted a partial HP boost to the rest of your team. It wasn’t a huge boost, but it was enough to make a difference occasionally in 1v1s. I’d personally like to see the idea expanded towards more supportive bonuses that don’t directly interfere with the base class balance, but more so over the long run and with team synergy.

(HellToupee) #6

Yes RTCW/Et had the same medic HP boost, it was never really a factor in class choice and in public games which were usually 32 players you 99% of the time had enough medics to cap it out.

WIth little bonuses its just fluff that adds complication but little actual gameplay value since most would not even be noticed in actual gameplay.

(Kl3ppy) #7

Would you like to see it as a specific passiv buffs, e.g. medics just give +5hp, or do you think about having like 3 or 4 passiv buffs of which the player can choose one?

(Kendle) #8

Slight modification, but QFTW otherwise.

I don’t particularly like this kind of thing, as the buffs are either too insignificant to make a difference (so you get complication for no reward) or they are too significant to ignore and you end up with one class mix > any other class mix. It also makes balancing maps particularly difficult, because you’ve not only got to worry about objective locations in relation to spawn points, and times, but also how to balance them by class mix.

(INF3RN0) #9

Well I’d like to hear more ideas from other players on the overall concept itself rather than responses to what I came up with in 5mins. What I’d like to see overall is perhaps less “fluff” in terms of flat rate bonuses for stuff like HP, but instead things that happen outside of combat. I’d be satisfied with the medic having very light bonuses for example, because it already provides a huge bonus (ie healing) to the team. Other classes just don’t have that team appeal like a medic does when it comes to their abilities and non-objectives.

Being able to choose your passive bonus would also be a neat idea. Again the passives would need to be balanced so that you might actually struggle to decide which you would choose. Overall though I think that said buffs should only effect the other classes, so that if for example you run 3 medics for XHP bonus, it means your FOPS/Soldier would be the only ones getting that bonus. HP bonus is actually something I’m not a fan of, so something more along the lines of regen time reduction or the like would be a better option I think.

(INF3RN0) #10

[QUOTE=Kendle;451180]Slight modification, but QFTW otherwise.

I don’t particularly like this kind of thing, as the buffs are either too insignificant to make a difference (so you get complication for no reward) or they are too significant to ignore and you end up with one class mix > any other class mix. It also makes balancing maps particularly difficult, because you’ve not only got to worry about objective locations in relation to spawn points, and times, but also how to balance them by class mix.[/QUOTE]

The main purpose of this however is to come up with some sort of solution to make every non-medic class feel really useful to the team dynamics rather than obj whore/kill whore. Healing/ammo packs are essentially out of combat buffs as it currently stands, however you have to hand them out directly. Other classes have abilities that are entirely focused on killing, which we either find too weak or too useless or too lame, etc. Giving those classes more important roles might alleviate those problems, passive bonuses or not. What do you think they should do with the current system?

(Kl3ppy) #11

Just an idea, but what would be if you could choose between 2 or 3 class specific abilities and lets say 3 or 4 overall abilities and pick one?
For example, as Medic you have 3 class abilties and 3 general abilities and of this 6 abilities you can pick one.

Class specific:
Medic: [ul]
[li]Increase hp of teammates by +5, max +10hp[/li][li]Increase healing time by 5%, max +10%[/li][li]Increase revive shield by 1 sec, max 2 or 3 secs[/li][/ul]
The revive shield should be deactivated when the revived guy shots his/her weapon while the shield is active.

Field Ops

[ul]
[li]Bigger magazines, increase by 4 bullets, max 8 bullets[/li][li]More Magazine, gives 1 extra magazine, max 2 extra magazines[/li][li]More Arty/Airstrike Damage by +5%, max +10% [/li][/ul]

Soldier

[ul]
[li]One extra nade, capped after one extra nade, could become too spammy[/li][li]Bigger nade explosion radius, but less damage[/li][li]Higher damage, lower explosion radius[/li][/ul]
I think that the soldier abilities I mentioned shouldnt add up for the team, could become a spam fest then. Maybe set the max of the ability gets reached already with 1 soldier picking the ability.

Recon

[ul]
[li]Faster Spawn capture, +5%, max +15%[/li][li]Faster Hacking for all classes, +5%, max +10%[/li][li]Reduced footstep sound, dunno how to make this[/li][/ul]

Engie

[ul]
[li]Speeds up the EV +5%, max +10%[/li][li]Reduce ability cooldown, -5%, max -10%[/li][/ul]

Right now I dont have an idea for a 3rd Engie ability.

General abilities

[ul]
[li]Better amor vs explosives (Nades/Mines), shouldnt add up[/li][li]Faster Sprint +5%, max 10%[/li][li]Longer Sprint +2 secs, max +4 secs[/li][/ul]
I just have 3 ideas for general abilities :frowning:

This is just a little Brainstorming on my side. Dont know if this is a good idea or not, nor if this is doable for competition.

(Kendle) #12

It’s a first-person-shooter in which one team has to complete an objective. I don’t mind everyone being an obj whore / kill whore, it’s kinda the whole point of the game. For me it’s this insistance on adding “fluff” to the genre that has seen every game since RTCW being an inferior copy, with the more fluff added (ET:QW, Brink) the more inferior it becomes.

Sorry, don’t mean to sound so negative, but not all change is good, and not everything anyone can think of to add to a game improves it. I rather feel we’ve lost sight of what makes good games great. Generally it’s their simplicity and adherence to core principles that achieves that.

(rUBBEN) #13

[QUOTE=Kendle;451188]It’s a first-person-shooter in which one team has to complete an objective. I don’t mind everyone being an obj whore / kill whore, it’s kinda the whole point of the game. For me it’s this insistance on adding “fluff” to the genre that has seen every game since RTCW being an inferior copy, with the more fluff added (ET:QW, Brink) the more inferior it becomes.

Sorry, don’t mean to sound so negative, but not all change is good, and not everything anyone can think of to add to a game improves it. I rather feel we’ve lost sight of what makes good games great. Generally it’s their simplicity and adherence to core principles that achieves that.[/QUOTE]

Sorry I don’t know you, but I felt quite offended by what you are saying. Don’t spit in the soup, it is all about balance right now. INF3RNO had a good idea in my opinion, and if everyone shout " BACK TO BASICS " each time a new idea is coming up dirty bomb will look like a melancholic poem written by embittered old-school gamers.

Shifty gets a big point there, I would say except with the bigger magazine for the field op, which would make him really over-powered. As a third ability for the engie I suggest decreasing the duration of secondary objectives by 5% or something like this.

(INF3RN0) #14

You can have your opinion Kendle just like everyone else, but there were things that people liked that were different in every game. I’m a hardcore gamer as in I value balance, complexity, and skill- so my main concern here is not whether or not you might like it, but rather would it impede on the game play or make it more interesting. At the core it would remain an aim based shooter, however there would be more strategy to picking classes rather than your preferred method of killing stuff. It’s not like I want anything ridiculous or noobish, but I do want these games to develop further; opposite of the CoD franchise.

The thing that gets lost is the ‘class based shooter’ amongst the ‘shooter’. Having every class with generic abilities with identical weapons is far less superior to games that have more to them. Stuff like self healing medics complaining they can’t kill a soldier who has no self healing for example was a huge topic of discussion that at the core made absolutely no sense and was illogically selfish. This is about discussion, so instead of just going back to old games being better by opinion keep it on topic and explain why this particular concept can only be fluff or uberbuff and nothing else.

As to RTCW being superior that’s just the opinion of RTCW players. Both ET and ETQW were very functional games although they were different and not everything was fluff. Improvements could have been made to the game play if patching actually had finances, but overall they worked as intended and because they offered more content the game play was much more dynamic and varied. Long time playability for the pubber is essential.

Problem here is that there isn’t enough focus on functionality and thinking, but instead simple solutions of do it the way my favorite game did it. It’s not going to happen… so let’s keep it on topic please.

(Kendle) #15

Inferno, I am keeping it on topic, I just don’t approve of the topic. Like you say, it’s just an opinion. :slight_smile:

I won’t derail the thread further, I’ll just stay out of it. :smiley:

(INF3RN0) #16

[QUOTE=Shifty.;451186]Just an idea, but what would be if you could choose between 2 or 3 class specific abilities and lets say 3 or 4 overall abilities and pick one?
For example, as Medic you have 3 class abilties and 3 general abilities and of this 6 abilities you can pick one.

I just have 3 ideas for general abilities :frowning:

This is just a little Brainstorming on my side. Dont know if this is a good idea or not, nor if this is doable for competition.[/QUOTE]

The thing with class abilities is that they are currently allocated to class loadouts with different weaponry, so I think those would have to remain locked. If the passives however only effected teammates, then it would be very possible to offer multiple choices per class definitely as long as they all were equally appealing/balanced.

Some interesting ideas there. I really dislike the whole “would it work for comp” because it has to work in both to be acceptable for me, unless it just had to do with the lower player count. This is why I’m thinking the potential for abilities would need to play to the strengths of objs and ability dynamics versus actual hp/killing ability. That’s where Brink went bananasammich, so I’d like to avoid similar ideas in that sense.

The Recon for example I think would be really nice to give a bonus towards objective rates as it sacrifices CQC effectiveness for obj completion potential. Obviously it might be a poor choice if your recon can’t do any killing, but with a competent one you might be able to shave off a few extra seconds in a SW match or have some clutch moments.

(INF3RN0) #17

[QUOTE=Kendle;451206]Inferno, I am keeping it on topic, I just don’t approve of the topic. Like you say, it’s just an opinion. :slight_smile:

I won’t derail the thread further, I’ll just stay out of it. :D[/QUOTE]

I know its tempting, but I’m mainly interested in more technical discussions of why X wouldn’t work or why Y could work. I agree with the fluff/op potential, but everything has the potential for extremes. Like I said I’m not pushing this really, but just picking the brain on something I see as not too incredibly intimidating and possibly interesting.

(pulley) #18

it maybe would work out for competition but i dont think any public player will bother about that…
And i really dont like the Idea for competition either. All this supports the defense and the defense has enough Power with turrent and mines…

(INF3RN0) #19

Here’s some more random ideas, mostly non-stackable. Again the idea is that these would apply only to the classes not providing them.

Soldier:
-Grenade regeneration every 40-60s
-Decreased requirement to gib via bullets

Engineer:
-Extra pack slot for medic/fops
-Grenade regeneration every 40-60s

Recon:
-Regain +4 ammo per kill
-Faster weapon switch time

(rand0m) #20

Let’s just add the “Veil” while we’re at it. Oh wait. Inferno your original ideas sound fine…but when people want to add buffs and weird mechanics to an mmo…I mean FPS…it becomes way to gimmicky. Ask the veil in Wolfenstein. What a failure that game was. Games have just got worse and worse since rtcw/et to try to do it different when on reality it isn’t working. How about try to stay close to the same but a completely new game? Maybe for once it’ll work. Just a thought.