Mercs' speed

(LuLNope) #1

Hope it’ll spark some discussion concerning mercs’ movement speed.

Firstly, is the change here to stay? It made game feel more campy. It’s harder to flank, simple rushing got a lot less effective, fights got shorter (even with higher HP, lower speed = worse dodging so it cut fight time by a lot), it’s a lot harder to hide behind a cover on time . IMO it’s a change for worse. I liked it better when mercs run faster. I’d revert the speed change but keep the HP for longer fights.

Your thoughts people?

(Kurnuttaja) #2

Still too fast imo

(Szakalot) #3

Small mercs are super fast still, I don’t think their speed got changed at all. I like that the heavier mercs got slowed down a little, but I agree that some of the speeds are a little on the low side. Overall I like that the speed differences were more highlighted between mercs.

(MissMurder) #4

This topic always gets brought up and opinions are usually pretty split down the middle.

(LuLNope) #5

I got the impression that you’re aiming to create a dynamic, skill and teamwork based shooter. Decreasing movement speed doesn’t seem to go along with that too well. I still enjoy the game, it’s not CS:GO slow, but I definitely liked when movements speeds were higher. At the very least please don’t drop the speed any lower, game dynamics already suffered a huge blow.

About how people are split about the subject: I’m pretty sure that people that want mercs to be slower come from some ‘tactical’ shooters like CS, Battlefield or other Warface/Soldier Front 2 kind of shooter. I mean, look at this post, I don’t want to bash anyone but without even playing his first match he already decided that he wants this game to be a CS clone. Giving in to people like this will only result in dumbing down the game, watering down it’s unique features and losing playerbase. CS lovers won’t play it anyway because, well, it’s not similar enough to CS, and players that enjoy fast-paced, skill-based gameplay will leave out of frustration for the direction the game is headed to.

(Kudochop) #6

I think there is a fine line that they are trying to land on with game speed. If you make the game “too fast” for most players they will simply not play. The entry barrier into the game becomes too large and its a daunting task for the modern gamer to learn the movement properly. I’m personally a fan of very fast games that require a lot of time and practice to master but think about the reality of things rather than pure personal preference LuLNope.

They need to create a game that appeals to both the hardcore ET player and the guy who pubs CoD/BF/CS:GO for enjoyment rather than a path to mastery. It’s a free to play game and they are going to need a lot of players of various backgrounds and skill levels for this game to stay alive. That being said, if they appeal too much to the “pro” crowd they alienate the more casual players which are 100% required to keep the game growing. If the game is to have match making similar to CS:GO you need a LARGE playerbase, otherwise your queue times are going to be way too long to wait for. If the game requires too much effort to play, in terms of finding people to play with or requiring being part of an outside community like ESEA in CS to find an semi organized game it will turn into a small elitist community. Those types of communities end up killing off games because they feel the casual gamer has ruined their beloved “skill based” game. I think you know what I’m trying to get at.

I love fast paced games, so fast that I don’t even get that feeling of being limited in my creativity when it comes to moving in combat. But that is a thing that the general population of gamers isn’t ready to take on yet in my opinion. This game is already faster in terms of movement speed than most, and the hipfire accuracy + wall jumping leaves a good amount of skill ceiling for the people who want to dive in hard. Could it be faster? Ya. Should it be faster? In my opinion no, just purely for the sake of the game being able to survive and grow it needs this more “sluggish” feel. This game is the best option out there for people who don’t enjoy the stop-shoot mechanic of CS and the spammy cone of fire type gameplay of CoD.

I’ll end there I think, I have plenty more to say on all of it but I personally hate walls of text, and this almost is one.

(LuLNope) #7

Mostly true. The only thing I can argue with is the learning curve thingy, it doesn’t become harder to master the game, the weight is shifted from knowing the map, where to nade, where to expect enemy camping etc. to simple out-aiming. If speed really was such a limiting factor Quake Live would never become this popular.

I’m trying to consider as many factors as possible. Market is already oversaturated with half-assed attempts at fast-paced shooters (Blacklight Retribution, Titanfall) and there are more to come (google Ghost In the Shell Online and Overwatch). It’ll probably be easier to get some reasonable playerbase if you won’t try to jump into direct competition against a lot of other games. On the other hand there’s real lack of modern, very fast-paced shooters, UT? QL? TF2? I think they’re already a bit dated.

Firstly it’ll be very hard to create a game that can appeal to gamers from both backgrounds. Differences in gameplay, expectations towards the game, everything is entirely different between CS and ET players. I mean, players from these background, probably wouldn’t even agree on whether we should have respawn-based game mode as the competitive mode or not. Secondly refer to my last paragraph, if people want to play the game “just for fun” there’s already plenty of choices in the “acceptably fast” shooter department.

I totally agree with the rest of that paragraph.

Again, the thing I’m talking about all the time in this post. It’s not clear whether being more generic will help to gain enough players for the game to stay afloat. It might be a better idea to follow a different formula than most.

(Kurnuttaja) #8

In my opinion the movement speed even as it stands is too fast for this type of shooter. This is a modern class-based shooter with linear objective gametypes, the gameplay should be more tactical and slower with less flanking. By modern I mean a shooter with sprint and iron sights. The fast movement just makes it a mess, 2 different types of play merged into one, arena shooter meets BF essentially. What DB is currently doing is the same as Rekoil did and its the most alike shooter to this I know atm. I think DB is more like Rekoil than say ET or UT.

Speed sure does make the game more skill-based though, hitting ppl is much harder and a skilled player can almost win a game by just having better aim than anyone else. I almost feel the devs are obsessed with skill, its more important to have the game skill-based than successful. Now Im not a designer but I just couldnt enjoy the gameplay at all, mostly because of this.

(LuLNope) #9

[quote=“Kurnuttaja;1148”]In my opinion the movement speed even as it stands is too fast for this type of shooter. […]

Speed sure does make the game more skill-based though, hitting ppl is much harder and a skilled player can almost win a game by just having better aim than anyone else. I almost feel the devs are obsessed with skill, its more important to have the game skill-based than successful.[/quote]

It IS important for the game to be heavily skill based. Devs are aiming to create a competitive game after all. CS and QL are competitive, heavily rely on one’s skill AND are successful. The only difference compared to CS/QL (when you think about this on a general level) is that DB will rely on a slightly different set of skills.

(Kudochop) #10

[quote=“Kurnuttaja;1148”]
Speed sure does make the game more skill-based though, hitting ppl is much harder and a skilled player can almost win a game by just having better aim than anyone else. I almost feel the devs are obsessed with skill, its more important to have the game skill-based than successful. Now Im not a designer but I just couldnt enjoy the gameplay at all, mostly because of this.[/quote]

I’m just very interested in this mindset can you go further into why you are not a fan of skilled gameplay? I’m not trying to troll or pick on you just trying to understand this different mindset.

It comes across to me that you are against the idea of becoming skilled in a video game. Is there something wrong with spending time and effort to become good at something? I almost get the sense that you believe skill is something that is granted to a person and not earned by hard work and dedication. Correct me if I am assuming wrong.

(Kurnuttaja) #11

[quote=“LuLNope;1149”]
It IS important for the game to be heavily skill based. Devs are aiming to create a competitive game after all. CS and QL are competitive, heavily rely on one’s skill AND are successful. The only difference compared to CS/QL (when you think about this on a general level) is that DB will rely on a slightly different set of skills.[/quote]

Sure the game should be skill-based but how heavy emphasis should there be for aiming and movement? I thought this game was supposed to be mostly about teamwork and less about individual skill, especially not gated by aiming skill. I feel like Im getting gated by aim in DB, I enjoy shooters like TF2, MNC and such but cant enjoy DB because I can hardly contribute with poor aim or am stuck with 1-2 classes to play (nader, maybe rhino but dunno as I havent him unlocked).

(Kudochop) #12

I feel like your overall opinion of the game would change drastically with improved aim. What do you feel you need to improve your aim? If I were to watch your gameplay and make suggestions to help you improve would you be open to something like that? Or maybe some kind of tutorial videos to show some better aiming strategies. I think you are assuming you are “locked in” to your current skill level. There is always room for improvement, and given the proper instruction and some practice time you would probably make gains very quickly.

Games are much more fun, including heavy teamwork based games when your individual skill is also well developed. I think a lot of players tend to lean towards “teamwork heavy” games because they feel it takes a load off of their personal performance. You don’t have to be bad at aiming, you CAN have fun in DB and there are people out there willing to teach/coach others.

(sleeepy) #13

The main cause of these problems is a small player base and no ranked matchmaking. I’d say currently over 50% of the people who play regularly are FPS veterans of some kind or another. If DB is successful and there are at least a thousand or so players online at a time then the problems you’re describing start to go away. You’ll (ideally) be matched with people who also struggle with aim and you’ll most likely have a more fun time with players of your skill level. If you put in the time and effort your aim will improve and you’ll rank up, playing with the people who are good right now.

This game is very similar to CS:GO in the sense that the games are very teamwork-demanding but at the same time have a high individual skill floor (relative to contemporary shooters, not Quake or TFC). If you look at how successful CS:GO has been then you shouldn’t worry about DB, provided it has a good matchmaking system.

(Kurnuttaja) #14

Even against less skilled players Im still emptying a magazine to kill one guy, its still an awkward mess to play. In fact after the patch my first games were against less skilled players and I cant say the game was that great fun even then. I got more kills but still didnt enjoy the gameplay with people swarming all over the place. I just cant see how movement like this fits for this game, this is not arena shooter and not really old school either. I bet if CS had as fast movement as DB it wont be as popular as it is.

I wish it was just aim but it actually isnt, its hard to explain. I just dont like this fast movement at all, its out of place and makes combat dumb. Instead of positioning and timing, we just run at ppl and take a duel with aim. Such belongs to deathmatch shooters, not to objective-based shooters imo. Now I wont mind speed as much if sprint, iron sights, spread (from other than shotguns and hip sniper) and recoil were all removed and the game was actually old school.

(sleeepy) #15

I guess this game isn’t for you then. The high TTK + fast movement are exactly why this game is good. Unlike pretty much every shooter today, getting the first shot on someone doesn’t guarantee a kill. If the opponent has better aim and movement than you he will most likely kill you.

This also contributes to the frantic pace of the game. In DB you can reliably move from point A to point B while getting shot at and have a pretty good chance of surviving. This means the attacking team can always push forward without fear of getting instakilled as soon as they turn a corner. It also means that it isn’t necessary to kill every last defender as you move into an objective and thus allows more focus on the objectives themselves.

Comparing this game to CS or Quake is pointless as this game isn’t trying to be CS or Quake. I’ve never played RTCW or ET but from what I’ve seen that’s the gameplay style and pace that DB is trying to achieve. A class-based objective-focused game with a high emphasis on individual skill.

(PixelTwitch) #16

I don’t think I am ever going to understand…

High Speed = High Skill
Low Recoil = High Skill
Low Spread = High Skill
High TTK = High Skill
Strafe Jumping = High Skill
No Health Regen = High Skill
Bigger Maps = High Skill
Class Based = High Skill
Single Class Proficiency = High Skill

Maybe I am just biased because what I see is…

All of the above = ET

Now I am not saying that is a bad thing at all, I am saying that I am concerned that we could miss out on certain aspects that could be better if we don’t deviate from that formula. I suppose what I am saying is that I don’t see…

Low Speed = Low Skill
High Recoil = Low Skill
High Spread = Low Skill
Low TTK = Low Skill
No Strafe Jumping = Low Skill
Health Regen = Low Skill
Smaller Maps = Low Skill
Role Based = Low Skill
Multiple Class Objectives = Low Skill

Sure its different but I don’t see just because they are complete opposite functions that the skill level required to be good is the complete opposite also. What I believe is that what is high and low skilled is defined by the restrictions put on the game, I do not believe that removing restrictions removes a skill ceiling.

(ASD) #17

I think if the game should be successfull for more then 2 months devs should have focus oin high skill… the lowskill stuff is fun for short time and for the most players booring within hours and for all other within months!

(PixelTwitch) #18

I think high learning curve maybe. I feel skill is something that you either have or don’t in most cases and its not exactly something you learn to improve quickly.

(ASD) #19

exact!
I still cant aim :slight_smile:
but I try my best to shoot someones feeet …

(Glot) #20

ok. so about speed.
Small mercs are very good. their speed is nice, feels great.
Proxy vs good players is not OP. she has only 90HP and she dies a lot.
vs bad players she is kinda OP. they just cant aim at fast moving objects.
so if she is moved to some more level like 15-16, then newcomers will not face her a lot. - because better players will be sorted out via match making to the point, that she is available.

other mercs’ speed is a little bit low. not TOO LOW, but lower than it should be.

about skill.
i gree with ADS - no-skill stuff gets boring realy fast. game will live long, only of there is skill and depth in it.