Idea? Expanding Class Meta Passively

(tokamak) #101

It stacks with the teams. Having tons of medics in ETQW makes a huge difference as soldiers can go up to what, 140 hp at respawn? That’s huge, they turn into absolute beasts.

I like how class passive stuff rubs off on others. That way you always have 8 passive buffs in play but always different combinations which means that you always have to take new nuances into consideration.

@Random: W:ET and ETQW come pretty close to having talent trees. It really doesn’t need to be more elaborate than that.

(HellToupee) #102

We had that in RTCW and it never brought anything meaningful to gameplay, the only purpose it had was to balance health pools to server sizes.

There is no fun to be had with passives even in RPGs because well they are passive fluff, they have nothing on the meta as something so simple as the smoke grenade in CS.

(INF3RN0) #103

[QUOTE=Kendle;451578]Lot’s of nice words Inferno, though for someone who doesn’t want to copy / paste ET:QW you sure as hell don’t waste an opportunity to mention it. :slight_smile:

But at the end of the day it’s the “how” in all of this I’m interested in. Several pages and 1000’s of words later and we’re still no nearer the how.[/QUOTE]

I just use ETQW as a good example because it took a lot of both good steps in the overall development of ideas (and was the last iteration by SD)- where in I think most might agree Brink was reverse engineering. ETQW aspects like spam/vehicles etc shouldn’t mask the stuff that got improved and expanded upon for the genre itself though. I don’t want a copy paste of the game, but rather to push general concepts and ideas further in DB.

We just have 1000 pages of garbage on the forum because we never conduct much discussion of ideas or not for very long, but instead it’s flame wars or negativity. I’d like to see more original ideas come out of these threads tbh, good or bad- at least it’s something.

(Protekt1) #104

I think when you spawn they can show you what buffs you are receiving on screen. Or something like that.

(Humate) #105

Lot’s of nice words Inferno, though for someone who doesn’t want to copy / paste ET:QW you sure as hell don’t waste an opportunity to mention it.

Using etqw as a model to explain or discuss concepts that DB could make use of, isnt exactly asking for a copy and paste.
As much as I loved etqw, I dont want to see a clone… however DB could use or even expand upon a lot of the things it did right.

(Kendle) #106

^ which is why there’s a smiley on the end of that sentence, I was gently berating Inferno (for mentioning ET:QW every chance he gets) for berating me for mentioning RTCW in the same context :slight_smile:

(Kl3ppy) #107

You have to make a difference between mention a game and forcing DB to be like a game :wink:

Here are some ppl who say: Look in RTCW/ET/ETQW it was done this way, maybe we should think about this and how we can get an improvement from this in DB. And there are other ppl who say: **** it, DB sucks, its not RTCW/ET/ETQW :wink:

(Protekt1) #108

^pretty much this

Blanket statements like OH its not ET… help no one. When specific examples are given then real communication of an idea happens. When someone says this or that sucks because its not like it was done in X game… that is unconstructive criticism.

(acQu) #109

[QUOTE=Shifty.;451799]You have to make a difference between mention a game and forcing DB to be like a game :wink:

Here are some ppl who say: Look in RTCW/ET/ETQW it was done this way, maybe we should think about this and how we can get an improvement from this in DB. And there are other ppl who say: **** it, DB sucks, its not RTCW/ET/ETQW :wink:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Protekt1;451918]^pretty much this

Blanket statements like OH its not ET… help no one. When specific examples are given then real communication of an idea happens. When someone says this or that sucks because its not like it was done in X game… that is unconstructive criticism.[/QUOTE]

I stated that as long as the game does not have a fast-paced movement system and is implementing slowdowns of all kinds, it will not be in the spirit of ET. You can make classes (every shooter nowadays has them btw.) and you can make objectives, there is still one important piece missing. I gave these two examples (for the fast-paced mind here what was important keywords in the last sentence: movement, slowdowns) which are hugely contributing in destroying my fun. I say here: make it like ET, because ET had it down the more fun way.

The second thing is: it says “in the spirit of ET”. I disagree here. I disagreed long long time ago, as i first saw that tendency.

Now: what kind of “people” do i belong to? Obviously in your opinion into the second region. And that is were i personally don’t see me actually and that is why i once again (although probably baited) think i have to explain what i am actually trying to say (actually i shouldn’t, because it seems people don’t understand what i am trying to say). I have pretty valid concerns, and i voice them. Imo bad bad marketing, you will dissappoint alot of ET players. It is NOT ET and i strongly disagree with the way you market that game. It will destroy ET reputation. Then why don’t you open up the audience to that new perception like: “look people, it is a new game, it is not ET, it is new, new concepts” and voila, i will be happy :slight_smile: But as long as you state at the front page the different to what you actually all say here in the forum (aka blabla, it is a new game, ppl don’t understand that DB is a new game) i will point to that quotes on the DB front page ever so often.

And sorry once again, i like some concepts of DB, but as long as the core movement stays like it is now i will hardly have any fun.

And that is only one thing (the movement).

The other core problem is the maps; they are linear. What do i mean with linear? No options, only one way to the objective, meatgrind all the way. No tactical decissions, just run at the front line, point and shoot.

I think these are valid arguments. Don’t act like ppl who say “ITS NOT ET” in your eyes are not giving valid arguments. First read the comments/posts about this issue a bit more closely, i think you didn’t even read them.

(Protekt1) #110

Well, the spirit of ET is up for them to determine. That is the creative license developers have. Don’t take that away from them just because you disagree. In the spirit of ET does not mean it is ET. And W:ET and QW:ET differ in a lot of ways because there is no standard by which they just say hey that component is ET or that component is not like ET. But I suppose they could better talk about game development than I can.

IMO it is in the spirit of ET as it is balanced around hipfire, faster movement, etc. All these things make it in the spirit of ET. But if someone is basically boiling down one component that is not like ET and saying that component sucks because its not like ET.

As far as my quoted section, I think its important to focus on constructive criticism rather than just saying its not fun because X is not like ET. That is all I am getting at. If someone says its not fun because (just for example) movement is slows down too much, jump height is too low, deceleration after jumping is too much and ET handles it better because X, Y, Z then that is constructive.

Its not about labeling its about promoting richer conversation.

(Ruben0s) #111

Yea movement and maps are for me the biggest downturns as well. I saddly can’t give propper feedback because I lack the english skills to do so.

(acQu) #112

Unfortunately it seems that, especially what the movement is concerned, it is hugely a matter of taste and where one comes from, and a bit of the dev-meta (aka “modern design”) imo; but hugely you can’t really justify why you want a fast-paced movement system and not slowdowns. The only argument for slowdowns i once heard was that it would promote a “cover-based” game. Ok, not sure what that means, but that was that in terms of bringing arguments to the table. My argument is freedom and having fun with a nicely tuned, responsive movement system.

So it is mainly about taste and you can’t really argue against that. But as a matter of fact the SD games in the past were all some kind of fast-paced in terms of movement system. Only Brink was not in-line. But that was ok, since it had its own character and flow (not a bad thing). But if you state you stay in-line with ET philosophy, then i really ask myself: were these games even played? Pretty sure that none of the current SD DB staff really delved deep into WolfET or RTCW. Hence my concern that when you say “spirit of ET”, then seeing how it is interpreted, with the movement system, then you were missing a great part of what made ET ET. Especially for the gunplay this has an effect. The past ET games had a very specific style of how in-fight movement took place. Mainly strafing, no slow downs. If you have the current TTK (which is leaned towards Quake, RTCW, ET, ET:QW) then you have to account for that in the movement system. A fight in DB is currently a one time confrontation, in ET you had, thanks to the movement system (it was fast, responsive, no animation delays, e.g. from running into shooting), a fight which was fun and not neccessarily a one time confrontation. That makes DB infights long-drawn out and unfun, when in the end, almost every infight feels the same. I would rather suggest CoD TTK then, with the current movement system.

Ah it is really so obvious to me, i really have to assume that these games were simply not played, which is a bold assumption to make, but everything points to it.

(rand0m) #113

Shock guns. I’m no longer interested in this mess. This game will never compete with games like Titanfall, destiny, the division. It had a chance to me cause it would have been fun being classic, but the dumb mechanics being added, just no thanks. Will I have a skill ability bar soon?

(acQu) #114

To give SD a prop, i like this stuff. This is one of the parts about DB i start to like. So i am not totally inline with all the “i want a comp gameplay”. I kinda just demand to have the core gameplay right, mainly movement, and the maps adopted to movement.

After that, the game still remains an infantry based close quarter first person shooter, which in itself should promote comp play. Massive environments and comp does not seem to fit in there and these days, but i don’t demand that. I just say that to me the future is open world. Probably no place for comp there :smiley: I actually don’t really care for comp, but i can understand where they are coming from with their ultimate reductionist demands. So in the end, what will the game look like the comps demand, just shooting? There has to be something which makes the game interesting, because after all, that kind of stuff has been there as well a million times.