How about:
2 Soldiers
Gives all none solider classes 5 more HP.
2 Medics
Gives faster out of combat health regeneration.
2 Support
Gives a slow ammo regeneration to holstered weapon.
2 Engineer
Gives a reduction in interaction time.
2 Spec ops
Adds range and weather or not they are carrying a objective to spotting, with a increase in duration of spotting time.
[QUOTE=rUBBEN;451202]
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.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I meant bigger magazins for all other classes, the Fops himslef has almost “unlimited” ammo 
decreasing secondary objectives is a nice idea. Maybe we will see more side objectives than its really helpful
Why cant some1 make a copy of RtCW? Cod does it all the time. Competitive play between cod 1 and cod bo2 hasn’t change that much.
There’s almost no original games out there anymore… every new game is either CoD or CS lol. Classics were good mostly because they were original more than anything. Making sequel copies satisfies comp players for a year until they start complaining that they need to release another so that it refreshes tournaments. Meh. Coming from comp myself I know that 99% are entirely selfish and love to hate every game besides the one they were good at 100yrs ago. The problem with new games is that developers care more about quick cash than functional game play or get too experimental without a proper testing base.
Veil sight was the least of that games problems… after all people are asking for bright models for comp in DB already *cough.
I like the idea behind it. Especially the medic and fops.
These are really things that would primarily affect the competitive scene. I mean pubs people may not even be aware of the benefits unless it is active on class selection like it saying : Team bonuses - 10% reload speed (5% per soldier used) etc. But even if ppl are aware they won’t care. Its just a pub and to have fun.
I really don’t see this as gimmicky, just a little meta added in class selection to consider. If its well done it will be an added aspect to the game.
It even makes sense to some regard. If you have a team that has been training together to go onto missions they influence each other’s strengths and weaknesses. If for example, in real life you always have a medic to patch you up each time you get injured you’re going to become more dependent on that medic patching you up than if you had to patch yourself up each time.
And for field ops, he is like toweliee… Don’t forget to bring a towel, I mean extra magazine!
noted. learning never stops.
@ all the suggestions from inferno and shifty:
they are mostly well thought and look almost balanced when looking at the numbers. Most ideas are actually nice, expecially speed up EV by playing with more engis is something that could be really enjoyable as it adds some tactical options.
Other stuff like additional ammo/nades/cap speed are not really a new idea, but ofc although worth thinking of/ testing them.
All in all those mini buffs and debuffs are no big difference from those rigs in BF3 ( or whatever it is called in COD). back there they could make quite a difference. However we should not exaggerate such stuff as in DB shooting and teamplay should be more decisive than stuff like those buffs in battle. So I wouldn’t mind if such stuff was integrated, but pls not too powerful.
Not quite true. We want a game that’s as good as the game we fell in love with 20 million years ago. SD want the same thing, otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
I’m not a fan of buffs, passive or otherwise. It doesn’t add anything interesting to the game and is just another bolt-on to try and get round core class balance/abilities that are borked.
[QUOTE=warbie;451238]Not quite true. We want a game that’s as good as the game we fell in love with 20 million years ago. SD want the same thing, otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
I’m not a fan of buffs, passive or otherwise. It doesn’t add anything interesting to the game and is just another bolt-on to try and get round core class balance/abilities that are borked.[/QUOTE]
I agree. We are on the same page.
Yeah, took some of my so called “General Abilities” from BF3
Im not a fan of copying any game (ET/ETQW/CoD/BF) but there is good stuff everywhere which can be used as inspiration
If they are well balanced I cant say, I just had these ideas but I think, as you said, it would be worth to test them.
The passiv abilities should ofc not influence the core of DB too much. Its still a FPS but imo it would add something to DB and when its done right, its a real nice to have.
[QUOTE=Protekt1;451234]
These are really things that would primarily affect the competitive scene. I mean pubs people may not even be aware of the benefits unless it is active on class selection like it saying : Team bonuses - 10% reload speed (5% per soldier used) etc. But even if ppl are aware they won’t care. Its just a pub and to have fun.
I really don’t see this as gimmicky, just a little meta added in class selection to consider. If its well done it will be an added aspect to the game.
It even makes sense to some regard. If you have a team that has been training together to go onto missions they influence each other’s strengths and weaknesses. If for example, in real life you always have a medic to patch you up each time you get injured you’re going to become more dependent on that medic patching you up than if you had to patch yourself up each time.
And for field ops, he is like toweliee… Don’t forget to bring a towel, I mean extra magazine![/QUOTE]
Sort of my thought exactly. An underlying meta that really is just there for conforming to a teams overall play style, where in you have a lot of possible options for slight bonuses that can seem fluffy however become very significant in a specific moment, but overall are just icing on the cake of aim/teamwork already in place (the main focus). No setup is technically better than another, however you might have particular strategies for different objs/maps because in scenario A you need that bonus ammo clip because your splitting your FOPS off from half your team in a push or maybe you want the extra engineer for the EV speed because you have a capable engy. If it were done well it could mean that you might actually want to run other classes for their team value rather than what you felt you could kill best with, which is what I feel is really lacking.
I just don’t see this type of thing ruining the core game or overtaking it myself. I greatly enjoyed the huge variety in ETQW 6v6 comp scene when it came to class selections, which essentially allowed you to mix and match due to the equally weighted roles of each class. It always came down to team preference and you would see entirely different tactics coming out of every team. When there’s that much variance in tactics in a comp scene, it becomes 100x more enjoyable to play/watch.
[QUOTE=warbie;451238]Not quite true. We want a game that’s as good as the game we fell in love with 20 million years ago. SD want the same thing, otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
I’m not a fan of buffs, passive or otherwise. It doesn’t add anything interesting to the game and is just another bolt-on to try and get round core class balance/abilities that are borked.[/QUOTE]
I’d love to hear more varied suggestions other than reducing the classes to 4 and instating a system that forces each class into a single repetitive role. Straying from that was a positive change by SD imo and at this point I’d say they don’t plan to reverse engineer their positive steps. Not to mention it doesn’t conform to their financial goals either.
Like I said already this is just for discussion purposes in the hope that many new ideas/alternatives might come from it. I feel like if all we do is complain about everything new and then don’t suggest new alternatives or improvements on what is trying to be accomplished, they will just do it on their own anyway. I’m just interested in a functional game however new and crazy it might end up being.
I just don’t get all the talk about class balance and such. This was never a problem back in the day no one complained something was too over powered or needed some extra kind of power or ability. sigh
If your referring to stuff like having just 1 identical gun for every class, etc sure. Why not make a game that’s a linear hallway with everyone equally spaced to ensure maximum potential for instant balance and absolutely no need to put in work for more complex game play. I’d rather play basketball over a footrace, but that’s just me.
[QUOTE=.N.E.R.D.;451222]1. Inferno tries to make improvements and give new ideas, imo that is a good thing.
2. Everyone still wants a game that is exactly like game xy he fell in love with 20 million years ago, and that is a bad thing.
3. SD wants to have a huuuuuuuuuuge community so they can monetize on their microtransactions and they don’t give a crap about the game you fell in love with 20 million years ago ;)[/QUOTE]
Sorry i picked out this comment, nothing specific on it, just want to relate to pick up on point 2. I see it this way: the route SD chose for designing this game was clearly to make a combination of ET + CoD and to substract userbase from CoD; it is in my eyes the try to directly compete with CoD. In making that attempt in my eyes SD will fail to satisfy the old ET userbase (which demand a more “conceptually free” game, mainly related to movement, quiiick movement, more freedom in maps and many other things which made ET) and at the same moment will fail to satisfy CoD userbase, since every half a year a new title comes out anyway and that is going to be played (all my friends play it, so i play it too). CoD has already a very established userbase currently and it does not help to try to copy it in order to attract its users. In order to attract the attention of so called userbase, Dirty Bomb really has to come up with something innovative, something really different, in order to attract the attention of this money cow.
From a global perspective: if you decide to make it mostly like CoD, you contribute to making the market more of the same, hence the term “generic”. I know (well not really, since i am braking my head only peripherically on game design) that It is very hard to innovate in FPS in my eyes, what came out the last years was essentially 99% the same, very few refreshing stuff. Instead, the big players in this genre have decided to reproduce what already worked for them in the past. CoD brings out more of the same every half a year, BF is the same. But, were is the ET games? Is Dirty Bomb really that innovative? Or is it in the ET genre because it has classes? What made it “ET-alike”? Very key questions to me. Another key question: were the ET games successful from a money perspective? Because i think that is THE deciding factor why SD chose to NOT reproduce their own titles from the past. It seems ET:Quake Wars was no big player (totally undeserved imo, if i had been around that time, i would have bought that game from the start and played it ALOT, imo it was way ahead of its time, something like BF at that time). So what i want to finally say is, that it might be better to reproduce what was successful in the past, and from that perspective the current FPS market could have three big players imo (sorry there are more, e.g. Arma), which imo could be CoD-games, BF-games and ET games. But for some reasons the ET niche was abandonded, probably because it was not considered successful in the past. Maybe it was a marketing thing, but almost everyone who played the old ET games wants to have them back on scene. DB imo is not a ET game.
[QUOTE=acQu;451279]Sorry i picked out this comment, nothing specific on it, just want to relate to pick up on point 2. I see it this way: the route SD chose for designing this game was clearly to make a combination of ET + CoD and to substract userbase from CoD; it is in my eyes the try to directly compete with CoD. In making that attempt in my eyes SD will fail to satisfy the old ET userbase (which demand a more “conceptually free” game, mainly related to movement, quiiick movement, more freedom in maps and many other things which made ET) and at the same moment will fail to satisfy CoD userbase, since every half a year a new title comes out anyway and that is going to be played (all my friends play it, so i play it too). CoD has already a very established userbase currently and it does not help to try to copy it in order to attract its users. In order to attract the attention of so called userbase, Dirty Bomb really has to come up with something innovative, something really different, in order to attract the attention of this money cow.
From a global perspective: if you decide to make it mostly like CoD, you contribute to making the market more of the same, hence the term “generic”. I know (well not really, since i am braking my head only peripherically on game design) that It is very hard to innovate in FPS in my eyes, what came out the last years was essentially 99% the same, very few refreshing stuff. Instead, the big players in this genre have decided to reproduce what already worked for them in the past. CoD brings out more of the same every half a year, BF is the same. But, were is the ET games? Is Dirty Bomb really that innovative? Or is it in the ET genre because it has classes? What made it “ET-alike”? Very key questions to me. Another key question: were the ET games successful from a money perspective? Because i think that is THE deciding factor why SD chose to NOT reproduce their own titles from the past. It seems ET:Quake Wars was no big player (totally undeserved imo, if i had been around that time, i would have bought that game from the start and played it ALOT, imo it was way ahead of its time, something like BF at that time). So what i want to finally say is, that it might be better to reproduce what was successful in the past, and from that perspective the current FPS market could have three big players imo (sorry there are more, e.g. Arma), which imo could be CoD-games, BF-games and ET games. But for some reasons the ET niche was abandonded, probably because it was not considered successful in the past. Maybe it was a marketing thing, but almost everyone who played the old ET games wants to have them back on scene. DB imo is not a ET game.[/QUOTE]
Good call. I like this post.