My personal concept of DB

[acQu]

I thought i would write it down just once. Maybe it is total meaningless, maybe not. I really can’t judge. I just felt the urge to explain this alongside a bigger picture at least once, so that my seemingly weird suggestions maybe could be made sense off.

I wrote this list off the top of my head and made it as short as possible, to not fallback to too much wall-of-text. Maybe some more stuff will follow, as i am sure i forgot something, as i said, i just wrote this down quick:

Movement:

• movement system from W:ET (that also means a total free up of all movement and all the annoying slowdowns, adjusting movement speed, adding the very same strafe-jumping system and making the character more responsive)

Maps:

• widen the maps according to the adjustment of the movement system (probably it would have been better to not map anything at first and just create one big test map like you did with fueldump, from what i heard, and fix all movement there first, like that of course there is no way back now, or at least the way back will be significantly more painful …)
• rework of concept story to widen the area of possible map design restrictions, so that the game can take on more place and is not just limited to just urban, maybe also dams, secret places, etc, i find that an incredibly limiting factor that the maps are just to take place in london and in urban territory, why not more, like different cities, countries, landscapes, etc…
• rework the maps to follow a 2-3-1 principle, where 1 is the objective (of course there can be 2, but that 1 should just denote a movement goal), 2 is the alternate routes from spawn, and 3 is the maximum of anticipated enemies around corners (when on each corner at min and max 1 stands), that also requires to close windows, routes, camping spots, this is alot of work, but it is for the better, Camden is very close to this principle.
• rework the handbags and trash items as cover concept on all maps (throw them out, replace them by something else, please …).
• rework of objective design and completely refresh it with new ideas, add new technologies, lasers, HAARP, mechrobots to free, prisoners, agents to free (but not to complement that with a slow escort mission plsease), make it boom, impressive, remove all the slow escort missions if you will not find a replacement for that, i would recommend starting a poll on these, if it doesn’t exist already, i am sure these are perceived boring by nearly everyone

Gunplay:

• gunplay from W:ET (same spreads, TTK, all the heckmeck the comps know more about than me, i don’t care, just make them feel right, so take W:ET and do not add rediculous spreads) + ironsights on top working like they should (long range weapon) + different burst firemodes
• add a configurable weapon loadout which can be configured by admins, representing extended and funcky weapons or standard equipment. Standard equipment is comp loadout, maybe just 7 different types of weapons only, the rest is boom and blingbling pub unbalance = grint
• suggestions for an alternate weapon loadout: http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/35678-Rapid-and-Killin-s-2-Cents-Chapter-1-Game-Mechanics-Movement?p=441409#post441409

Network:

• i have no clue, but this is one of the major things i think you should fundamentally rework. The concept of local packaging from what i heard, so that even events from 2 frames land in one packet and get transmitted sounds wrong (however, if that is not the case i aplogize, it may have been removed or i misunderstood that then), also hitdetection should be more server side, not clientside, just like W:ET, it had pretty good netcode if i am able to judge that just from my casual gaming experience and from the few reviews i read about.

Misc:

• introduce a tutorial mercenary explaining the intro stuff to you similar to quake live
• add a bit more depth to the story by adding meaningful mercenary companies, add maybe three if that is possible, it would certainly make it more interesting, and let admins decide which fractions they want to let compete against each other on each map rotation
• increase base health of every character except assault to 145 and account for that with body/headshot damage (minimum of 50 damage for each headshot on every weapon, snipers of course have higher headshot damage output, bodyshot damage is below and adjustable as per weapon)
• headbobbing and all viewdistortion type of effects shouldn’t be worked on imo (energy waste)
• bring back old medicpacks and forget the rambomedic concept, do not add artificial solutions, also no HOT and no self-regeneration
• bring back commandposts and add value to them so that they can function as side objective similar to W:ET (make that meaningful)
• create two different game modes inside the game representing comp vs pub. On comp the main focus is balance and reduced spam, for pub the focus is on opening possibly unbalanced possibilities to the game, such as class abilities and different weaponloadouts.

TLDR the most important parts: build upon W:ET regarding movement system and weapon system and adjust the maps according to the movement system (making them wider) and fundamentally rework the maps according to the way they are layed out (give them more macro level paths, not just one, and less micro-level paths) and add more freedom in design for the mapdesigners by alternating the storyline, so that not all maps take place in urban territory around London + refresh objective design with new ideas.

[Ruben0s]

I would love to know the story behind DB. I’m a bit scared that the story will limit the game in some ways like: locations, guns, gameplay etc.

Like all the guns look realistic and gameplay wise there is not much difference between them. This is imo a big missed oppertunity to stand out from all the other games around. Maybe splashdamage can add some cool weapons that would fit in the story. For example weapons are are getting scarce because of the radiation and people start to make homemade weapons ( which are unrealistic as ****, but fun to play).

[Mustang]

What is this 2-3-1 you speak of?

[Raviolay]

I would love to know the story behind DB. I’m a bit scared that the story will limit the game in some ways like: locations, guns, gameplay etc.

Could put in two competing corporations, that you side with as mercs, and dirty bombs just happen to get detonated in city’s, where one of the corporations happens to have research facility. With a view to steal research, for a new miracle energy fission technique, so one gets a monopoly. That way you have a pretext for other city’s/locations. Even off the wall experimental weapons, if that’s where they want to go with this, they could even put nods towards Brink by having you steal acoral research.

[acQu]

What is this 2-3-1 you speak of?

Just a denoter i made up regarding map layout. Whitechapel for example is a very linear map, it would (extreme number just to denote the difference) be 1-10-1. Take goldrush W:ET, you spawn as Allied. You have 2 possibilities to move from there. Up to the tank or you take an alternate and meaningful route around the back. These would make up 2 alternate routes from spawn. So its already 2-X-X. Once you decided you go along one route, other routes pop up, but in most cases these will not be more than 3. In addition: that number 3 is your enemy anticipation number (so to speak). In arcade FPS games you really should not have more than 3 of these, because if you increase these numbers aka add more windows and paths of exposure it starts to feel random. It has something to do with human perception. A human simply can’t watch out for 10 places at ones. This is the bottleneck of DB imo, regarding moving along the maps: the many many places you need to watch out in close combat. The last 1 is just a denoter for a movement goal aka objective.

Hope that makes sense. Of course that theory can be broken, as it is not 100% accurate, but it is an indicator imo of the bottleneck (i perceive it as such at least) in mapdesign. Now the feeling beeing exposed when you run around LondonBridge for example ? That is that 10 (10 places you need to watch out for). W:ET hardly has such bottlenecks. The awareness zone and the perception of the human eye is not overstressed in this regard, but still skillful. In DB it does not feel like skill, more like luck in this regard.

So it’s basically 2-3-1 i think is correct, and DB in alot of cases is 1-10-1 (exaggerated 10).
EDIT

Could put in two competing corporations, that you side with as mercs, and dirty bombs just happen to get detonated in city’s, where one of the corporations happens to have research facility. With a view to steal research, for a new miracle energy fission technique, so one gets a monopoly. That way you have a pretext for other city’s/locations. Even off the wall experimental weapons, if that’s where they want to go with this, they could even put nods towards Brink by having you steal acoral research.

Which gives me this strange idea: why not incorporate real world politics and a scenario where the big corporations are the main force behind everything. The political reference would be the concept of preventive war, that is: thousands of dirty bombs are thrown in key locations because someone thinks evil could grow from there. It would be more like a timeline of events, not just one event, in a futuristic scenario where everyone mistrusts everyone

[Protekt1]

If you only have 3 possible spots an enemy can come out of and you can watch all 3 then there isn’t much point of team play or splitting up. You could fairly have 10 spots an enemy can come from since this is a team based fps. Under your assumption, 4 people could conceivably cover 10 openings. But I don’t think the importance is in the math although math can be a guiding force, rather than a defining force.

Plus there is a bit of a crutch tool in the game atm, that radar ball. I kinda like how it operates but maybe being able to have 2 deployed at once is too much.

In regards to back story, I think its fine being located around the London area. But I hope corporations aren’t the driving force behind everything cause that is a bit played out.

Regarding movement options, I don’t feel as strongly as you about movement. As long as I don’t get caught up by invisible jags in the geometry I’ll probably be happy. I kinda do wish reloading didn’t cancel sprint tho

[acQu]

Yes, as i said, that theory can easily be destroyed. I rather would see it as a guideline to how i imagine maplayout to take place in DB. That concept i am describing about maplayout is basically W:ET.

Here is the numbers again:

W:ET (according to this theory) is based around a 2-3-1 (with the middle number varying from position to position)
DB (according to this theory) is based around 1-10-1 (with the middle number almost always higher compared to W:ET, there are just too many open windows, hidden corners, bridges, up areas, middle areas, side areas, and everybody at that place at once, take for example LondonBridge the area after the attackers blew up the first barricade. You really couldn’t stop counting from where an enemy can come from when you try to pass that one lower corridor out to the street to the other side, even your back is oncovered).

It is not a 100% correct theory, but it describes it pretty well i think. These are basically macro/micro-level-maplayout-denoters (if that makes sense ^_^).

As for a corporation-story that is played out: with “palyed out” do you mean that it gets old? Hm, to me far less repetetive. Any new game nowadays has it? I think almost none. I think of some Gilgamesh sort of thing, if that film was watched

[Nail]

afaik, W:ET maps are built around figure 8 paths, I think DB maps are more open because they can be, Oasis offered many combat points even without wall jumps, but all routes converged at the wall

[acQu]

Here a goldrush commandmap destroyed with my paint skills

Kinda is almost 2-3-1 imo. Sometimes it varies, ok (that is why it can’t be generalized and is a broken theory), but if you compare especially the blue middle nodes to DB than you will see what i mean. DB has upper areas, lower areas, bridges, not even your back is covered mostly and for that i think DB does not scale well in this regard. First there are almost no real alternate routes from spawn, second the middle number is way too high imo.

[Mustang]

You can do that to pretty much any map though.

[acQu]

Try to do it with Whitechapel or LondonBridge. In a majority of cases you will meet disproportion. Camden is as i said the closest to this principle, though the alternate routes here (noted with the red dots) are not really the same compared to what you are used to from W:ET e.g. Würzburg Radar, Goldrush, Battery … they are almost blue dots actually.

Also there are certain parts where blue dots do not scale well, that means there are too many awareness spots (dot becomes a higher number). You can see the blue dots twofold: one is simply as an indicator for walking routes a player can take from there and one other is as indicator of the many directions an enemy can be expected from.

EDIT

what might be not fitting my concept is your red dots. As you can see from the goldrush commandmap if you already followed along one of the arrows pointing out of the red dot, you can only really reach the other route by either running completely back or taking a significant other route. On your pic with Camden you can just run across the street from the top of one red arrowhead to the top of the other arrowhead and be done. So this is not really an alternate route. That is a major difference. So actually you should draw one red dot and one blue dot right in front of it with the red dot pointing at the blue to denote that it is actually linear and not a real alternate route. This is a major difference and attributes to the linear feeling i pretty much have with all maps in DB. The other problem is the blue dots as already mentioned (can get too high in number), maybe you could also call them exposure tokens as well as tokens to indicate paths. Probably would need to extend the model then aka drawing different colored arrows out of it

[acQu]

I made a new suggestion which i think is cool: http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/35678-Rapid-and-Killin-s-2-Cents-Chapter-1-Game-Mechanics-Movement?p=441409#post441409

Basically i would want to try to have hipfire weapons and ironsights weapons. The problem from my perspective is the many submachine gun weapons, which are hard to be made distinguishable. I would reduce the amount of submachingun types to 2 standard weapons for each team (on both sides these weapons look and sound different, but have the same parameters). Any thoughts?