MY Sugggestions/questions for ET : QW

(|_}UM{--}G{_|FeAR) #1

  1. Include some big vehicles (for land AND sea) that can carry several people and have mutiple emplacements. Passengers of sea vehicles can shoot of of the deck. By “big” I mean 60-to feet. Of course, these would be in limited supply.

  2. The video shows that there are some assault rifles. be sure to include some SMGs (or an equivilent thereof) and some pistols. This probably really obvious, but I just want to get eveything covered.

  3. Dual wielding for some of the smaller guns would be neat. According to the gamepaly vids, a lot of the action takes place on a large scale, but there was some clsoe combat too, so this would come in handy. :slight_smile:

  4. A variety of Turrets for fortifying postions and home bases. Wait… are there home bases?

  5. I noticed that many of the guns seemed to featured dislpay readouts. Will these actually serve a purpose, such as conveying remaining ammo in the clip?

  6. Tracers. Thes really add to the visual effect of the battles.

  7. Splash damage (hehe…) for the explosions.

[8] Alt fires.

  1. Ability to customzie your weapons (just add-ons, not too complicated) in the load out screen.

  2. Limited target tracking for hand carried rocket launchers. Could you consider having a multiple rocket launcher too? If you wanted to fire in tracking mode, it wold only be one rocket, of course. THE MRLS should only be available for vehicles.

Meybe a hand carried MRLS with it’s own tracking would be balanced? You would have to lock onto each target individually though. it owuld be really nice to see many rockets, each going after a different target.

  1. It would be nice to give players a choice of how much equipment they can carry. This would allow for some variety and preferences. :slight_smile:

  2. Some weapon that fires in an arc.

  3. Please don’t over do the recoil. The recoil shown in the recent gameplay vids was good, so please keep in that way. :drink:

  4. How many weapons are planned?

  5. How many vehicles are planned? Will the vehicles be predominantly land based?

  6. Let us create custom server block lists, based on several aspects. Example: Prevent people with the name “myg0t” from joining the server in the fist place.

  7. Melee attack.

[18] Differnent stances, which affect accuracy.

(carnage) #2

although very nice surgestions it sounds like you havent realy read the reviews or spend much time tracking the game

AFAK there are not large sea battles planed although there are water craft they aprear to be for shorter range transport or me ground based with amphibious capablitles

half you srgestions are alreeady confirment to be in or not in the game

and with the gam alread been in develpoment for some time its very unlikely that they will start adding features like customizable weapons that peobably wouldnt add much since the game is not a realistic and if anyhting like W-ET you will find that weapons can be addapted to differnt situations mainly in the way they are used

also your later surgestions are not surgestions but questions that can be answer in the ETQW FAQ

(|_}UM{--}G{_|FeAR) #3

Thanks for the responce. :slight_smile:

Could someoen be so kind as to provide alionk to the ET FAQ?

BTW, I know enough about ET to know that it isn’t realistic, and to that end, that’s why I suggested weapon add-ons. Sci-fi weapons could also have add ons. It’s perfectly plausible. :drink: I nmean, I know that the devs aren’t going for something super deep, and that’s why I didn’t suggest that you design the weapons, just that players should be able to add their own personal touch. :slight_smile: Players will still be able to get into the action fast.

I just feel like haivng your loadout choices resitricted to being merely able to choose your weapon is a bit old… ET has very new graphics, so it should have the gameplay to go with it. :drink:

Are there any screenshots of the loadout screen?

AFAK there are not large sea battles planed although there are water craft they aprear to be for shorter range transport or me ground based with amphibious capablitles

I was referring to the size of te sea vehicles, not the battles. :banana:

To get a large battle all you’de need is many people.

I think it would be good if ET ofered several kinds of land vehicles, several kinds of air vehicles, and several kinds of of sea vehicles.

About the large vehicles, I wasn’t really saying that they should be the size of an aircraft carrier, that would make the game unoplayable… Just 80-100 feet.

It would be awe-inspirig, but perfectly manageable. :drink:

(Wils) #4

I can comment on a few of these already. The others will have to wait. Please note that there isn’t much meat in this post if you play Wolf ET, or have been following ETQW’s progress over the last few (hah) months :slight_smile:

No plans for this, and it wouldn’t really work, given the scope of the game - ETQW’s focus is on objectives and squad combat, and big vehicles aren’t mobile enough to be beneficial in such scenarios.

We have a mix of weapons that covers most of the types you’d expect to see, from pistols through to heavy machine guns.

Both teams have a couple of types of defensive turret for just this purpose (and shoring up frontlines).

Tracers are in, and vary depending on the weapon so you know what’s being shot at you.

All explosive weapons do splash damage.

Both teams have rocket type weapons which can lock onto and track targets.

Most classes have a choice of loadout, not just for preferences sake, but also because certain weapons are more useful in specific situations.

We have a couple of weapons which do this.

No plans to change the current recoili levels.

Yes. Humans don’t fly or swim so good, so most of the play area is land-based and the vehicles reflect this.

This is in, and varies slightly between the teams.

Also in, and varies depending on the weapon - lighter or short-range weapons are less effected by stance.

(Nail) #5

more than 4 - 6 people in one vehicle wouldn’t be a good idea imo, too big a team loss if the thing gets 'sploded

(Gringo) #6

Battles aint really fought at sea tbh so it would be fairly silly to have large scale sea battles!

(B0rsuk) #7

MY suggestion to the original poster: (my new sig)
stickies are there for a reason!

(Zyklon) #8

Not to mention that big vehicles are rarly used because they are easy targets, and they are hardly ever fully loaded, even in very large scale games. People tend to prefer to have small vehicles they can drive where they want 'em.

(|_}UM{--}G{_|FeAR) #9

I greatly appreciate your responces, Spash Damage Team. :slight_smile:

Not to mention that big vehicles are rarly used because they are easy targets, and they are hardly ever fully loaded, even in very large scale games. People tend to prefer to have small vehicles they can drive where they want 'em.

I don’t thinkit would be such a bad Idea.

I mean, I wasn’t suggesting making them a mile long.

The team could choose whether they would want to enter the vehicle. Also, I implied that the vehicle can carry 8 people, not that it [u]has[/i] to carry eight people. :wink:

I was thinking that the vehicle has :
-1 Driver
-4 gunners (each of em’ mans a different weapon)
-3 passengers, which can add to the defensive potential by shooting out the windows (if land based) or shooting off the deck (if sea based)

I don’t think it would be good to predefine player’s roles. Players should be given a choice about where they want to fight.

BTW, sea battles are REALLYawesome and it is great bombarding a land position from sea. The combo of all the differnt vehicle types really adds a lot to the gameplay. :slight_smile:

Even if you aren’t going to make large vehicles (please take this under consideration, devs, as it is very original and would be awe-inspiring), IMHO, there should be more than 1 type of boat. Be sure to have atleast 4 types of land vehicles, atleast 4 tpes pf seasea, and atleast 4 tpes of air vehivcle.

So if big vehicles deson’t fit, just be sure that the vehicles vary widely in size,speed, # of weapons, and # of people that can fit in it. There are vehicles that have more than 1 weapon, right?

(kamikazee) #10

I’d like to keep all those vehicle things for Battlefield… In that concept, EA/Dice is way ahead.
And ‘some’ people over at Clanbase are rather craving for a good infantry game, so the game should be even better if the vehicles don’t disrupt that balance.

EDIT: Before I forget: there’s nothing wrong with choosing a particular weapon, but the ET concept works just fine with class-restricted weapons. Every class is unique, so some weapons are unique for a given class.

(|_}UM{--}G{_|FeAR) #11

If Battlefield showed that it can work, why not put them in QW?

You could probably disable vehicles for those who thought that they disrupted the gamepaly.

EDIT : I’de also like to see an MRLS.

(ouroboro) #12

I love this man.

(CrazyGuy) #13

What your might be asking for is an Mod. Ofcourse, someone has to make it first, until the game is released.

If SD is going to add more stuff. Its going to add more time to the games’ release.

Now, do you want to wait longer for the game or not ?

But i do liked some of your suggestions, though.

:smiley:

(Danyboy) #14

indeed - nothing better for the enemy team in BF2 than one dude taking out a blackhawk with 6 people in it.

(kamikazee) #15

Don’t say that too loud over here…

I do think that BF didn’t work out that well in terms of infantry/vehicle balance.

(cmos) #16

I can understand vehicle for transport and attack on buildings, but when its used on players it just mess up everything.

(Isabel Lucas) #17

|}UM{–}G{|FeAR wrote:
[18] Differnent stances, which affect accuracy.

Also in, and varies depending on the weapon - lighter or short-range weapons are less effected by stance.

This didn’t work in Battlefield 2 and caused a very boring game in which everyone had to prone to win. It also caused a prone spamming problem. When prone spamming was removed by delays, it slowed the gameplay and detracted from the skill generally as the delays affected all proning actions. Personally I’d advise caution against accuracy for different stances.

Try playing BF2 on a high skill server and you’ll see what I mean, it just becomes a proning fest in which he who wins gets down 1st.

A far better solution is to make all weapons more accurate when fired prone / knelt at long distances say 200 yards +, but retain a very similar pattern between the stances at lower ranges. Thus long distance shots are rewarded when taken with care but in close quarter battles the emphasis remains on using skill to effect player movement whilst still maintaing accurate aiming. This is much moire preferable in gameplay and skill terms to a competition as to who can hit the floor 1st.

Al.

(ouroboro) #18

Proning is a “problem” in every game which has it. The reason is clear: it’s effective. Therefore, the solution is equally clear: remove it’s effectiveness.

This stuff ain’t rocket surgery.

(Isabel Lucas) #19

Proning is a “problem” in every game which has it. The reason is clear: it’s effective. Therefore, the solution is equally clear: remove it’s effectiveness.

This stuff ain’t rocket surgery.

Exactly and the thing that makes it effective is the greater accuracy placed on prone shooting as opposed to upright shooting.

Give them similar profiles and the advantage in going prone is removed.

Result is you get a faster game played mostly upright, in which player skill through jumping / moving and shooting, and aiming whilst doing the same becomes paramount. Thus the skiill factor goes through the roof and the game becomes far more interesting with a much steeper learning curve, which in itself adds to the games attraction for clans and leagues, and adds longetivity to the title.

Al.

(Lanz) #20

Don’t forget Isabel Lucas that W:ET and ET:QW are what I would call an action-tactic game, where you run around in 30mph and where accuracy usually isn’t a big problem. Going prone in W:ET is just as often the same as a sitting duck, easy stationary target. We don’t know how it will actually play out in ET:QW but I wouldn’t be worried about it.