Idea? Expanding Class Meta Passively

(Kendle) #61

Like the assumption that we don’t agree with you simply because we haven’t thought about it enough?

Either buffs have a significance, or they don’t. If they have a significance it adds to the complexity of the game and has a negative impact, IMO, on the ability of teams and players to innovate (on the battlefield) as much as they would without them. If they don’t have a significance why have them?

I guess I’m ideologically opposed to any mechanic whereby any further decisions that affect the outcome of a match (beyond those we already make, like class selection) are transfered from the battlefield to the UI. At the moment a team might lose because it didn’t have the right class. That’s unavoidable in a class based game. But I don’t want to see a scenario where a team loses because it didn’t have the right buff. That is avoidable, by not adopting this idea. If, in your imagination, it’s not possible for a team to win or lose because they had or didn’t have the right buff, why waste people’s time deciding which ones to choose?

A more interesting idea is the one in your previous post, expanding class roles. At the moment we have Medic and F/Ops throwing packs at each other. That’s a bit simplistic, but it’s better than buffs because it gives players a choice (as to when they do it and who they do it to). If other classes had packs containing some resource advantageous to the team the danger is you’d just have pack spamming at spawn, and / or confusion on the battlefield about which pack contains what (the new player will either ignore them all, or consume them all), but it’s a better idea than passive buffs because at least it involves choice “in-game” rather than “in-menu” and that’s my primary objection to your original idea.

(Kl3ppy) #62

[QUOTE=INF3RN0;451325] 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.
[/QUOTE]

Cool idea, never read it :frowning:

For me the only supportive roles are the fops and the medic. Right now they are the only classes which are really necessary for a team. The grenade pack for the engie sounds cool, but I fear it could become a spam fest.
I have a prob to see the covie and the soldier as supportive roles. The soldiers role is somehow the demolition man. He deals a lot of damage and has the c4 for ultimate destruction. The covie should be more a spy and sneak around the enemy etc.

(INF3RN0) #63

[QUOTE=Shifty.;451329]
For me the only supportive roles are the fops and the medic. Right now they are the only classes which are really necessary for a team. The grenade pack for the engie sounds cool, but I fear it could become a spam fest.
I have a prob to see the covie and the soldier as supportive roles. The soldiers role is somehow the demolition man. He deals a lot of damage and has the c4 for ultimate destruction. The covie should be more a spy and sneak around the enemy etc.[/QUOTE]

Well the problem here is that people want to be able to kill each other as fairly as possible with each class. Every classes ability is meant for outputting direct damage, except the medic and fops also get a team support ability on top of that. In the end a soldier might be a demo man, an engineer a zoner, a fops a ranged shooter, etc- however defining supportive roles wouldn’t change those at all. Instead each class would have very unique means of play style in order to get frags, but they could also provide more than just flat rate kills in the sense that they do even more for the team (just like fops/med who also are great at fragging). That’s why my thought process is to keep a fairly equal balance among class killing ability and equalize the support roles instead of having a TF2 style approach of fragger, healer, etc.

(stealth6) #64

[QUOTE=Kendle;451320]

  1. DB is a true successor to ET,

  2. In every game community I’ve been involved in a new version of a game has always been met with hostility

  3. As regards DB and new ideas, new and different is not necessarily better.

  4. Anyone that wants to accuse me personally of being close-minded can …

  5. OT, I don’t like the idea of buffs, because I believe they actually stifle innovation and make the game less dynamic.[/QUOTE]

  6. I wouldn’t say a true successor, but the closest we’re going to get.

  7. Yes

  8. Yes

  9. They’re the same thing, it’s your favorite game because you think it’s good. Therefore I don’t think it’s bad to reference previous titles. What is bad is rejecting every idea that wasn’t in your favorite game. (without explaining why you’d think it would be a bad feature and adding to the discussion)

  10. I am also against overcomplicating the game, but it seems as though if SD are going to do it, so it’s better to try and steer it then ignore it. Also I’d think that if the balancing was done well there would be multiple viable options. (not one ultimate combo)

I think it’s an interesting idea that could motivate players to try other classes (on the idea of more supportive roles). Atm I’m pretty bad at DB compared to other players so I just tend to stick to medic or engineer because I know that even if I suck I can at least help my team in some way that doesn’t require me to rack up frags.

On the other hand I’m not against just playing the same class every match if it’s enjoyable and I like the idea of classes having specific roles. That’s why I’d also prefer to see a 4 class system intead of a 5 class since with 5 classes it just seems as though we’re making stuff up to make it interesting when it’s not really.

As for team buffs I don’t really like the suggested buffs, but I can’t really come up with something better myself.

(Kl3ppy) #65

I would also like to see that a 1on1 isnt decided by the classes which face eachother. Also I like when every class can actually support the team but I have some doubts/or missing ideas how the soldier could to this besides dealing damage. So its not a game design prob its more a Shifty Brain prob :smiley:

(INF3RN0) #66

[QUOTE=Kendle;451328]
Either buffs have a significance, or they don’t. If they have a significance it adds to the complexity of the game and has a negative impact, IMO, on the ability of teams and players to innovate (on the battlefield) as much as they would without them. If they don’t have a significance why have them? [/QUOTE]

First off let’s just say I’m more prone towards approaching the situation by equalizing support roles in my previous post over the passives.

As to the passive system I was suggesting though I just don’t think you were fully understanding what I was saying by the sound of it (though some of the specific ideas I listed were pretty awful). For the most part I would want passives to play a significant role in between the killing. These would relate to objectives, rates outside of combat, small percentage boosts on abilities, etc. They would not be significant towards getting kills or improving teamwork, but they could impact certain situations in very close games.

Imagine that you have a very close match up and you choose to have say two engineers (or whatever class might provide increased obj speeds) to get an extra bonus on the EV speed. Maybe having that engineer will shave off 1minute to an unobstructed EV run, but there’s no guarantee it will be worth it as there’s way more deciding variables in play. The opportunity is still there for the moments you might think something like that would be the best choice though. That’s the kind of thing that I’m referring to with “passive bonuses” which definitely don’t hold greater influence than the essentials of teamwork and player skill. In a game where a win is within a set time frame however, certain passive perks like that can make all the difference even if it’s only a matter of a few seconds here and there.

(INF3RN0) #67

I can’t emphasize these words enough. In the end they are going to do a lot of stuff we aren’t keen on, so best to do all we can to shape them into something we do like before they end up in the mix anyway. The whole reason why complaining, insulting, and making demands don’t do anything but increase post count :penguin:.

(acQu) #68

Just to pick up one last time on what i think is ET, because i have explained it alot in the past what i think is wrong with this game and what makes it mostly CoD.

That is what to me is the core of ET: classes, objectives and a nice and fast-paced movement system. And no, the movement system is not a distant third. It is essential to any ET game out there and greatly would distinguish it on the market nowadays.

Also speaking more generally: ET was freedom of choices, doing things, having options to do them. DB is linear levels, one route and along that one route everything happening. That to me sounds one of these “modern” game designs. It reminds me of CoD, that is why i say that, combined with the movement, and the MMS theme, that game is 70% CoD, and i do not throw it as an insult, i just look at it objectively.

Just to explain myself once again, because it seems i can’t get my vision across of SD filling the market with something different, and not more of the same. And yup, i have nothing against new things, i think camu is cool, the nades are also cool, and i am looking forward to the matchmaking and the session-xp-level system. Aaand of course the characters. I just happen to think: how awesome would all that be with actual cool and “anti-modern” non-linear maps and a cool ET-like movement system. So much potential in my eyes thrown to dust. The market could be enriched with something different …

(stealth6) #69

DB’s movement system is way “better” (different) than CoD. (faster, crouch jumping) Afaik in CoD the only objective mode that comes close to DB is search & destroy where you have to detonate 1 of 2 bombs. (so less linear than DB I’d say since the bombs aren’t next to eachother cough Waterloo)

I’m not sure what you mean with MMS theme, but anyway what I’m trying to point out is: you can’t possibly say you’re looking at this objectively and then say DB is 70% CoD…

I agree with you’re points that the game has been dumbed down compared to W:ET (optional objectives, movement system, TTK, …) but to compare it to CoD just doesn’t make any sense imo.

(Kendle) #70

The problem with that scenario is once again you’ve made a decision in the UI rather than in-game (so it’s not a dynamic decision), and it will almost certainly end up that having 2 Engies (or whatever) to speed up the EV will become the de-facto standard tactic on that map at that stage because it’s just better than not doing so, and so you will have ended up actually taking a decision away from the team rather than given them more options.

A better mechanic would be 2 players (of any class) escorting the EV increases it’s speed, 3 players increases it even more etc., and for this to be a standard mechanic that no-one has to choose (in the menu). Then the team has the choice, in-game, of whether to commit players to escorting the EV, or commit them to engaging the other team somewhere else, and it’s something they can vary on the fly. This adds a dynamic element to the game and allows a variation on existing tactics, without anyone having to wade through a menu of choices outside of play or having the game pre-determine the class mix because one combination, in one particular scenario, is better than any other.

(acQu) #71

Thank you for making that distinction, because i feel like i am being throwin into one pot with that. I am not against new ideas.

I’m not sure what you mean with MMS theme

Modern Military Shooter? I heard that term from Total Biscuit in his cool video and i think it is a prime example of what DB strives to be: mostly linear and with modern submachine guns. Wasn’t like that always. It is like a dev meme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOHyD49DaeA

(INF3RN0) #72

I mean that’s a good idea for the EV objective that I would support testing on. The one thing that I view differently is that class selection itself is already huge… sure you have to actually perform with that class real-time, but standing two players next to the EV for example doesn’t have any real performance requirements either. Is there really that much of a difference in the theoretical example of running an extra engineer to boost the ev speed versus sitting right next to it to make it move faster? Both scenarios force that “necessary means” you keep mentioning as bad. You can make real-time decisions as to how many people you commit to pushing the EV the same as you can just switch out your extra engineer for another class if that extra engy was actually slowing down your progress in the long run. That’s just where I’m having trouble seeing the difference.

(Kendle) #73

No you can’t, switching out for another class is not “real-time” in the same sense. It requires a /kill, going through the UI, waiting for next spawn + travel time. Not the same as player B helping player A escort the EV down the hill past defender spawn towards 2nd barrier on LB then noticing defence have re-spawned and legging it back up the hill to help player C hold them back while player A stays with the EV. That’s the difference. :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #74

Yes! More passive stuff, also different passive attributes for each character.

Passive buffs/debuffs can also work as auras so they can be stronger. It shouldn’t be as explicit as in battlefield heroes, they kind of ruined the concept with it. But once the effects are more elegant and stackable you get really interesting teamplay going on.

A disguise covert op character could be a walking HB sensor as well. Passively scouting out all the enemies in his near vicinity. That way he can be highly harmful for the enemy team without breaking his disguise.

A field ops can have an ammo saving aura. Like every third bullet gets saved if you’re shooting near a field ops. It’s not game breaking but a benefit like this can really make itself count over time.

A medic well, obvious, higher regeneration aura. Assault can be a walking flare partially blinding opponents. The point is, it’s not just subtle percentages here and there, there can be lots of abilities that contribute passively in a more plastic kind of way.

(rand0m) #75

[quote=tokamak;451347]yes! More passive stuff, also different passive attributes for each character.

Passive buffs/debuffs can also work as auras so they can be stronger. It shouldn’t be as explicit as in battlefield heroes, they kind of ruined the concept with it. But once the effects are more elegant and stackable you get really interesting teamplay going on.

A disguise covert op character could be a walking hb sensor as well. Passively scouting out all the enemies in his near vicinity. That way he can be highly harmful for the enemy team without breaking his disguise.

A field ops can have an ammo saving aura. Like every third bullet gets saved if you’re shooting near a field ops. It’s not game breaking but a benefit like this can really make itself count over time.

A medic well, obvious, higher regeneration aura. Assault can be a walking flare partially blinding opponents. The point is, it’s not just subtle percentages here and there, there can be lots of abilities that contribute passively in a more plastic kind of way.[/quote]

no no no no no no and no.

(Anti) #76

Is there a reason or did you just lean on the N and O keys by mistake?

(BomBaKlaK) #77

I don’t really like the ideas of tokamak to.
I really prefer the % stuff more relevant to me

(Kendle) #78

[QUOTE=tokamak;451347]A disguise covert op character could be a walking HB sensor as well. Passively scouting out all the enemies in his near vicinity. That way he can be highly harmful for the enemy team without breaking his disguise.

A field ops can have an ammo saving aura. Like every third bullet gets saved if you’re shooting near a field ops. It’s not game breaking but a benefit like this can really make itself count over time.

A medic well, obvious, higher regeneration aura.

Assault can be a walking flare partially blinding opponents.[/QUOTE]

Don’t have a problem with this kind of thing (to an extent, some of those are a bit silly), as this is not what Inferno was suggesting. What I don’t want to see is buffs that are selectable separately from load-out (not sure if that was being suggested anyway) or buffs that depend on a specific class mix (i.e. get buff X if you have 2 of class Y), which I think was being suggested. The former leads to un-necessary complexity, the latter smacks of forcing class mixes on teams and stifles innovation, IMO.

These aren’t really buffs, they’re simply part of the class load-out, although I guess you’d need to balance them across load-outs. For example I like the idea of a Recon load-out that allows the player to act as a mobile HB sensor, but that load-out would then not have the static deployable HB sensor, presumably?

Medic with healing aura we kinda already have (the one with the health station). I guess a F/Ops with a deployable ammo rack (but not ammo packs) would be the ammo replenishing version of the Medic + health station.

Don’t like the idea of Assault as a walking flare, that smacks too much of a 1-v-1 combat advantage.

What I’d also like to see however are attributes that promote co-operation amongst team members. For example 2 Engies can defuse C4 faster than 1, can 2 Soldiers arm C4 faster than 1? Multiple players can activate something with PDAs faster than 1, so I’d like to see what I suggested previously, multiple players escorting the EV increases its speed (perhaps +10% per extra escorter?).

I was also thinking of something the attacking team could use to counter turrets, maybe Recon could hand out a “decoy pack” (based on his disguise technology) that when given to someone renders that person only semi-visible to turrets, so they either miss entirely or do less damage, and could be time limited, or only save you from 1 turret, so if you’re hit by a turret the “disguise” wears off.

(Samurai.) #79

I haven’t really read the general majority of posts in this thread as i have fairly limited time right now… but the general idea seems to be towards adding “passive abilities” or “special auras” to reward players choosing X number of a certain class.

Tbh it just feels like unnecessary additions of complexity to try some how compensate for the lack of fun and depth in the core mechanics. Literally at this stage right now we need SD to just tackle head on the core mechanics of movement, shooting, class balance and map development.

Right now these core aspect’s individually are at different stages of completion. I’d say map development is the key aspect that needs working on the most, then movement and class balance and lastly shooting which is closest to being complete out of the 4 components.

Once these are developed to the extent where we can play this game in a “barebones” manner with minimal gimmicky features and it is extremely enjoyable then start discussing the possibility of additional ‘gimmicky’ features or passive layers of complexity.

(rand0m) #80

[QUOTE=Samurai.;451363]I haven’t really read the general majority of posts in this thread as i have fairly limited time right now… but the general idea seems to be towards adding “passive abilities” or “special auras” to reward players choosing X number of a certain class.

Tbh it just feels like unnecessary additions of complexity to try some how compensate for the lack of fun and depth in the core mechanics. Literally at this stage right now we need SD to just tackle head on the core mechanics of movement, shooting, class balance and map development.

Right now these core aspect’s individually are at different stages of completion. I’d say map development is the key aspect that needs working on the most, then movement and class balance and lastly shooting which is closest to being complete out of the 4 components.

Once these are developed to the extent where we can play this game in a “barebones” manner with minimal gimmicky features and it is extremely enjoyable then start discussing the possibility of additional ‘gimmicky’ features or passive layers of complexity.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this.