Are you sure you would like what he’s suggesting?? SD made ET and ETQW after all.
Old man mentality ie against change. Become open to the new and expansion otherwise call up the RTCW devs and ask for a cookie cutter sequel idk. New concepts have rough starts, but eventually become great with gradual refinement. Now that we have such a long alpha it skips the process of early patching needs. Be an alpha tester, any kid can whine and say do it like before when trying anything new…
Let me be more precise: there is demand for a true ET game and SD fails to realize that. They are, in my eyes, currently probably taking the biggest dump on their old ET userbase. There is pretty clear indication of that. Even if they say their game is going to be a “spiritual successor of ET”; it’s not.
Also, i know for a fact that you are not honest; you have already given up on this game. Hence your propaganda “this is a new game” and all that bla. Like it or not, SD demands your honest opinion as well, probably mine not so much anymore 
But i am not planning to take a job in the game industry anyway. So i can afford to be honest 
I loved ET. They aren’t making ET here. It’s straying too far from ET style and some of the suggestions and complaints are asking to stray to far from ET as well. I guess I’m part of the vocal minority anymore and I’m kinda sad I put 120 into this game to see where this is going. Hopefully it’ll turn around and stay a classic shooter but I doubt it with some of these outlandish weird suggestions being made and to see them show up in game will just be disastrous. I’m still holding out hope that SD stops trying to compete with cod but to make a community along side cod. You’re not going to pull in cod fans, you just won’t. Anyway, At least that game from infinity wards new company looks awesome…Titanfalls multiplayer looks sick, just shown at E3 today. Won’t be so sad to see this game fail to reach my expectations that I had expected from the original video released show casing a classic fps now come to find out we’re getting invisible players down the line…c’mon.
"there is demand for a true ET game "
nope, W:ET in all it’s glory still exist, still gets played, but you don’t play. Why is that ?
You know it took me a while (a year or two) to figure out that GDF received a health bonus with extra medics.
@Nail: it’s still a true statement. Browse the internet and read comments, there is still a huge demand.
then my server would have been full the past 5 years instead of empty other than me and some other old guys out for a lark
decided not to edit last post, this is different
I love W:ET, it provided me with not only fun, but therapy as well. I just loved running and maintaining our little fansite, it was great having our own servers (still got one) and I met hundreds of people that taught me, humoured me, made me laugh, made me pull out my hair. W:ET as we remember still exists, just go ETPro and look for stock map campaigns. People want the same emotion, not the same product. Gamers as opposed to e-sports players want photo-realistic graphics, massive arsenals to choose from, and hats
Gamin’ aint’ the same no mo, people want pro mods, they want a comp game, Publishers for the most part say fy play what we gives ya and they do
I think not
ETPro stock maps
I think not, people want xp save and stupid crap. real ET is for old folks
btw, server was in top 25 on SL for years
I’ve never heard really anyone demand a new W:ET outside of this forum…
I think in the f2p market this game could dominate.
I still have not gotten a full taste of the game cause no one ever plays on NA and I stopped trying.
Derp … the point i made was somewhat ambiguous. I talked about SD keeping their toes in true ET, offering a true alternative FPS shooter in the FPS market, with ET mechanics; talked about W:ET and ET:QW, i don’t think an exact copy will do, but the core mechanics have to be ET, and in that you have imo another big player on the market again, the ETplayer (cogh).
DB works for me that way so far, I’m old and less demanding possibly , I have a destroyed left wrist atm, so I can’t comment on combat, although I played on the AUS server one drunken eve and quite enjoyed it, even got a couple kills.
I didn’t come from RTCW so I may not understand that dynamic from the RTCW fan(atic)s, I went from CTF on Delta Force 2, to objectives on W:ET, got booted from the first few servers I played on until I figured it out, I don’t think many gamers would do that today
What makes an ET game an ET game? I don’t really see people complaining really explaining in detail what is wrong with adapting new ideas. I don’t expect DB to be similar to ET or ETQW or the like outside the basic features. As long as the true core features are present, everything else can change without ruining the ET experience. I just accept the fact that they want to make DB ‘old school’ meaning solid game mechanics and play. That’s what I consider old school. New ideas and features can be solid and functional too- all they do is force old fans to adapt which many are reluctant to do. When it comes to knit picking everything just because it’s different its purely selfish.
An example here is say turrets, mines, or a shotgun. People say ‘just get rid of it all’, which is totally absurd. There’s barely any thought or effort put in by the players to even suggest how to improve them or alter their mechanics. Instead you just get repetitive derailing posts that always go back to “remake my game”. At which point it’s just wasting everyone’s time. The constant bickering between which ET game was best is also nonsensical. Each game was functional and that’s all that mattered. Brink was non-functional. That’s the only case where the game just didn’t work, where in the others simply increased the complexity in game play or altered it and forced players to deal with it. In the end they were all the same core game.
I don’t mind turrets shotguns or mines. What I DO mind are invisible players and weird “buffs” and “meta” classes that people want to impose in the game.
Just look at the ratings of SD’s games from ET to Brink. Have you noticed they went down significantly every time? Parkour just wasn’t done correctly. Titanfall is about to change that, now THAT is some awesome movement.
The problem is brink was so far from ET that the core game just wasn’t there anymore. Technically ya it was…but at the same time it was done so completely wrong it was ridiculous. The way DB is now is fine. I enjoy the game the way it is now. What needs fixing is the maps and strange objectives. Fog needs to go byebye. They fixed the stupid no shooting penalty with an objective. The game needs some better maps, some wide open maps. Carry able objectives need to be reworked a bit…3-5 data cores to deliver is just silly to me. London bridge is a great map in my opinion and its probably the best right now and most enjoyable to me. Camden sucks in my opinion until I see the 3 data core thing go away I won’t be satisfied I think it’s silly. TTK needs to be lowered just a bit, skins need to be drastically updated. Cover ops invisible **** just needs to never be implemented because I think that’s just silly. Turrets and mines are fine. Concussion and flash grenades are fine. Instead of giving covie invis, give him smoke.
Skins and models need a drastic update. Hit registration needs a massive update. I’m not a big fan of the unreal engine and haven’t been a fan of the unreal engines since ut2k3. Hit sounds need to be fixed sometimes ill hear 4 dome dings yet I end up dead somehow and the enemy still has half his health, it’s flat out broken.
Weird buffs don’t serve a purpose on this game and there’s no need to add strange buffs.
Extra 10-20 hp with a certain amount of medics is fine, it’s been the norm for this type of game since rtcw. But adding weird health gimmicks just doesn’t need to be implemented. And I really wish we could remove the health regen and at least test it out in between patch phases.
Lets just hope the game can garner to a competitive scene and allow maps and pro mods (unless SD gets it right).
So then your against weird buffs, so am I. That’s the reason why it’s just a discussion to flesh out acceptable possibilities like those that were present in the old games. What makes the old ones fine, but any possibility of expanding into new ones not okay? This is just an example of a seemingly interesting concept that got dumped because they went too far down the wrong path with them in Brink. To me it’s a loss of a potentially interesting part of the game. Both ET and ETQW expanded class roles to become more complex and dynamic, which is lacking in DB currently. This needs to come back, but not in the original super simple form that was RTCW. This topic was simply one means of furthering those developments, though I’d be open to anything that might accomplish that goal.
Other stuff that got dumped as well that I want to see return in one form or another and be improved upon and expanded:
-Side objs
-Forward spawns
-Map jump routes
-Unique movement system
I’d rather have something new and fresh that replaces all of the non-core features of the previous games with equally interesting alternatives personally. When it came to playing ET or ETQW I played one over the other not because one was a better version of the same game, but because they were completely different experiences only with the same goals. Both felt functional, fun, and competitive and the game play was so dynamic that no two games ever felt alike- and that’s why people still play them.
First of all, im sick and tired of all the guys screaming: This isnt ET/RTCW!!! Yeah all of this people are right, this isnt ET/RTCW/ETQW/Brink, its Dirty Bomb, a new game and not a sequel of any game. If these guys want a pure shooter, look at Shootmania, that is what you ask for … Or convince a guy to remake rtcw/et. But no, many of these guys just jump in and say: no its bad, it wasnt in RTCW/ET instead of helping to make DB a very addictive game which we all can play for the next year. Every kind of critism is better than just shout no, its bad. Insetad explain why you think its bad, that would help more than just yelling …
Second, I also want a good shooter (ETQW is for me a good shooter, never played RTCW/ET) and not a mmo but I think that there are features in other game genres which could fit into DB. As longs as these features dont influence the outcome of the shooter, its ok. I said this some posts ago.
@rand0m: Is DB the first alpha version of a software you are testing? What you say what is crap right now (hit reg, hit sounds, performance) are parts of the game, which will get improved over the time during the alpha. It is typical for an alpha version, that the program/software will get extended over time and that the version isnt useable for dayly work. Just wait a couple of weeks/months and you will see a massive improvement of the game.
And now feel free to hate me, rep me down, I dont care …
Without wasting time quoting people, here are a few thoughts based on various posts above:-
DB is a true successor to ET, because it’s an objective game, simple as. Of all the things that make past games (Brink, ET:QW, ET, RTCW) the same it’s the objective system that unites them and distinguishes them from the crowd. Second to that come classes (other games have classes) and a very distant 3rd come things like movement and weapon behaviour. Strafe jumping and guns that take longer to kill someone than it takes to boil an egg aren’t what make ET, ET, and DB isn’t COD because it lacks these things. You’re throwing the term COD at DB as an insult, one which it does not deserve.
In every game community I’ve been involved in a new version of a game has always been met with hostility (and demonised as being an un-worthy successor) by those closest to the game. ET was hated by the RTCW community at first (and by some for a very long time). It was not recognised as being in any way similar and the RTCW scene predicted it would be dead within months.
I then played DOD, which went from DOD1.3 to DOD:S (same game, different engine). DOD1.3 players hated the new game, flamed Valve for selling them down the river, fans of both flamed the other for lacking the skills to play their preferred version.
I’m currently somewhat involved in the UrT scene. The current version is 4.2, the previous is 4.1. The comp scene refuse to move from 4.1 to 4.2. If you’d never played either before you couldn’t tell the difference, but the UrT devs are getting the **** kicked out of them at the moment for “ruining” the game.
As regards DB and new ideas, new and different is not necessarily better. Look at what’s already happened: “new” spawn system, dumped because it didn’t work, “new” shorter spawns, dumped because they don’t suit an objective game, “new” ammo drop system, dumped because it undermines class interdependency. As has already been pointed out on these forums, most of the significant game changing modifications made to DB during this Alpha phase have involved dropping new ideas and re-instating old ones, because the old ones worked.
Anyone that wants to accuse me personally of being close-minded can go **** themselves with a large blunt object. I was an early adopter of ET and a moderator on the old Jolt RTCW forums when ET was released, and vigorously defended it against the hate. I argue for things I think are good, because I think they’re good, and against things I think are bad, because I think they’re bad. I don’t, and never have, argued for or against anything based on “that’s how it used to be done in my favourite game”. I might point to previous games as “evidence” of course, like I argued for spawn waves pointing out how they worked in previous games, but I argued for spawn waves because they work, not because a previous game had them.
OT, I don’t like the idea of buffs, because I believe they actually stifle innovation and make the game less dynamic. The more variables there are (classes, load-outs, buffs) the longer it will take teams to figure out the optimal mix for a specific scenario, but they will figure it out, and then everyone will use that mix or face being disadvantaged.
The one game I’ve played which I’ve found to be truly dynamic and innovative is Team Survivor mode in UrT. It’s totally barebones, everyone uses the same gun and same load-out. There are no classes, no objectives, and of course no buffs, yet it’s different every time you play. And it’s different, and unpredictable, precisely because you’re not tied into doing anything in any particular way by a class system that whilst defining what you can do also defines what you can’t do. If you fail it’s because you didn’t have the skills or the team-work to win, not because you chose the wrong buff at the wrong time.
I’m opposed to buffs not because they’re new or different, and not because RTCW didn’t have them, but because I think they’re a bad idea.
We have objectives that define where we need to be on the map at any particular moment. We have classes that define what we can (and just as importantly what we can’t) do while we’re there. Having to also choose from a range of buffs to further define (and limit by omission) the things we can and can’t do is a step too far IMO. I want the outcome of the game to be determined by the skills and team-work of the players, not the choices they made in the menu. And I want the teams and players to be free to innovate and do unpredictable things, not shoe-horned into a pre-determined scenario by a pre-determined class / load-out / buff choice.
Back on topic I was thinking a bit more simply this time around.
[B]Problem: Classes do not provide equally consistent supportive roles outside of combat.
Solution A: Expand other classes support roles.[/B]
First off killing ability and class roles should be separate. If anything killing ability should be almost equal across the board based on the balance with that specific classes loadout. IE A medic’s weapon will be weaker with self healing medpacks than without them. The pro con system that depends entirely on combination variables.
Those balances however really should be treated separately from the support role, which is essentially the same for every class. A medic’s main class role will still need to remain healer/reviver for the team. An engineer for example shouldn’t just be all about repairing objs or dropping mines. The objectives are separate from the class, the killing means are balanced with abilities, but the support roles are what is missing on most of the classes.
The big question is how can you give every class equally important support roles while also allowing for variety in class combinations- ie Brink buffs forcing specific classes. I still think passive bonuses could add a lot, but if that can’t be done then I think we should go back to past discussions. There was a lot of discussion in the past about how to expand supportive roles of other classes, but somewhere along the line it became buried by bigger issues.
Here’s an example of how that discussion went;
Medic:
HP packs
FOPS:
Ammo packs
Engineer:
Grenade packs
Soldier:
Bonus ammo clip (starts empty)
Covert:
Something related to objective rates maybe… upon giving item to class X they gain reduced objective interaction time for X seconds idk
(insert attractive role here)
Maybe something along these lines would be seen with more immediate attraction? I can see a lot of possibilities for supportive abilities that would be just as useful as that of a medic or FOPS if applied to other classes. At the same time all of the support roles being equally attractive would still allow for varied strategies. Overall I want to be picking my class for what I think will best support the team rather than just “I get more frags with this class so I’ll play it” or “Eh I guess we need an engy for this stupid obj, then I’m switching back to medic”.
[QUOTE=Kendle;451320]
I’m opposed to buffs not because they’re new or different, and not because RTCW didn’t have them, but because I think they’re a bad idea.
We have objectives that define where we need to be on the map at any particular moment. We have classes that define what we can (and just as importantly what we can’t) do while we’re there. Having to also choose from a range of buffs to further define (and limit by omission) the things we can and can’t do is a step too far IMO. I want the outcome of the game to be determined by the skills and team-work of the players, not the choices they made in the menu. And I want the teams and players to be free to innovate and do unpredictable things, not shoe-horned into a pre-determined scenario by a pre-determined class / load-out / buff choice.[/QUOTE]
Okay this comes up every time there’s a new idea from either a tester or the devs… the assumption that the worst case scenario is unavoidable. Take ammo bins for example, we identified the problem as interfering with class synergy ie fops wasn’t needed. What we didn’t do was think past the solution of removal. I suggested ammo bins be a place where your team’s fops could dump their available ammo where it could stay for a duration of time before automatically emptying out. That suggestion however got buried under “GET THESE OUT OF HERE” spam.
Shotguns came around. People said get these out of the game they are imba! Others suggested means of balancing the shotgun so that it could exist. Mines and turrets get dropped in suicidal charges and many times actually get kills. The suggestion there was to add an arming/deploy time.
It’s too bad every attempt at trying to flesh out an idea or improve one that doesn’t work at first get’s spammed by people with the thought process of “if it doesn’t work in my head or immediately, it won’t ever work”. That’s what I account to all of the stuff that actually ends up in the game from all the derailed spam threads. We could have a lot more influence I feel if we actually had constructive attempts at discussion first and willingness to test things thoroughly before deciding we’re all reincarnated game developers who know best.
Why would I want buffs that become necessary because they significantly sway the outcome of games? What I’ve been saying is that I’d want them to be purely supportive bonuses that don’t give flat advantage in 1on1s or skew class balance. How has what I’ve been saying this whole time come across as more significant than team work performance and aiming? In the end the stuff I was swaying towards would have very situational significance that would come in between the main deciding factors you mentioned. So I’m just confused why you think this for example is destined for failure no matter how it was approached???
