It’s a technical limitation. Sure that doesn’t mean it’ll be broken but lets not paint it as some meta game or depth giver to justify it.
I suppose another way to put it is that a suggestion to put random weapon drops/abilities in the game would be seen as totally unbalanced and unfair and yet locking people to builds is different?
[QUOTE=SockDog;448892]It’s a technical limitation. Sure that doesn’t mean it’ll be broken but lets not paint it as some meta game or depth giver to justify it.
I suppose another way to put it is that a suggestion to put random weapon drops/abilities in the game would be seen as totally unbalanced and unfair and yet locking people to builds is different?[/QUOTE]
Even if its not a technical limitation they should keep this. Meta game is a powerful POWERFUL aspect in many competitive games including CS, MOBAs, ARPGs, RTS. It is the strategy you devise before you get into the game. This is definitely worth testing to see how it works out, at the very least. If its too restrictive, they can alleviate some of the restrictions like alternate weapons on a loadout or giving us a 6th free loadout slot for any class loadout to fit into.
I don’t see how random ability/weapon drops or whatever would be unbalanced. I definitely don’t see the relevance or comparison you are trying to draw.
as it is, it works fine for me, I can decide how I want to play when I enter a map, I will know the engi I play the best in each circumstance, ie: has the gun/secondary I like for that map
The whole meta game, pre-game strategy stuff is misplaced, it’s a <20 min map with multiple changing objectives and 15 other random people. How do you strategise with barely any information? What happens when the strategy fails and you have no way of adapting? You lose the objective, maybe the whole map. And yes you could argue that fielding a team with limited abilities alongside skill adds to a competitive game, the problem is this is going into pub games.
BTW. You named one FPS there, the rest are different genres and offer different gameplay. Without the whole meta pre-game interface of something like DOTA this all falls on its face.
I don’t see how random ability/weapon drops or whatever would be unbalanced. I definitely don’t see the relevance or comparison you are trying to draw.
I’m referring to things I’ve suggested in the past and the general consensus that taking anything away from a player’s own abilities is a terrible crime against humanity. This takes away, to lesser degree perhaps, a player’s ability to adapt to the abilities of other players. You’re going in with 15 other people and may win or lose not because of how well you played but how lucky you were in selecting the configuration.
As a technical limitation I can accept that this is just the way it’ll be but I’m not going to buy in that this adds anything to the game.
I’m missing something here, engi in W:ET had 2 weapons, both made the player play differently, I liked Thompson others liked Rifle nade, but outcome was always the same, blow sh!t up
You and everyone else could select both weapons. Maybe it’s me, I’d like to pick the best weapon for the job not hope there is a job for the weapon.
yah, you choose before you start the map, I’m not suggesting in map switch other than class
I finally got around to checking this out.
The basic idea, realistically, it could grow on me quite abit. I think it could grow on everyone… just one detail.
Mid-game gun swapping is a serious deal-breaker. And this is one of those key design mechanics that made W:ET and ETQW what they were… one of those vital though overlooked elements that made haphazard tactical changes in a stalemate match so dramatic. All it took was one person who knew how to launch nades properly in W:ET to change the tide for a few vital seconds… or those suicide flamers. Those moments where everyone’s caught up in what they’re doing, sometimes cause they’re inexperienced, sometimes because they’re just struggling to stand their ground against a pro-ish team… all it takes is one person who knows what they’re doing to try a different weapon.
Choice of firearms is vital… minimal options are a must to keep things focused and less chaotic when it comes to ongoing balancing issues… but the choice has to be there nonetheless.
In W:ET I did it almost all the time. I was a suicide engi though, so doing things like Fuel Dump for example, sometimes the thompson was necessary to survive a frantic run into the depot, plant, drop a nade at the dyno and then do a rambo spray and pray… sort of a retarded (yet very effective) form of suppressing fire. But pushing through the rest of the map with a traditional non-sneak team strategy meant I often was one of those bastards nading up the hill (or down if I was axis)… but then again it all depended how I felt too, or the quality of the team I was playing with, or against. To me it added that extra little bit of flavour to all the classes and all the possibilities on maps.
I switched about far less often in ETQW when playing engi, but still, it’s something I always consider when the team gets stuck, or I just feel like I’m not performing well that night, a different firearm leads to a different mindset.
[QUOTE=SockDog;448968]The whole meta game, pre-game strategy stuff is misplaced, it’s a <20 min map with multiple changing objectives and 15 other random people. How do you strategise with barely any information? What happens when the strategy fails and you have no way of adapting? You lose the objective, maybe the whole map. And yes you could argue that fielding a team with limited abilities alongside skill adds to a competitive game, the problem is this is going into pub games.
BTW. You named one FPS there, the rest are different genres and offer different gameplay. Without the whole meta pre-game interface of something like DOTA this all falls on its face.
I’m referring to things I’ve suggested in the past and the general consensus that taking anything away from a player’s own abilities is a terrible crime against humanity. This takes away, to lesser degree perhaps, a player’s ability to adapt to the abilities of other players. You’re going in with 15 other people and may win or lose not because of how well you played but how lucky you were in selecting the configuration.
As a technical limitation I can accept that this is just the way it’ll be but I’m not going to buy in that this adds anything to the game.[/QUOTE]
I really only named 1 game but I could name several other shooters if necessary. The point is that metagame adds more layers to gameplay and more depth as well, even to pub games. But this manner of loadout choice is not like a MOBA or even ARPG and its 10x less restrictive than either of them. No matter what loadouts you choose you are capable of winning the game. Some may give a leg up on certain objectives but claiming you lost because of your loadout choice? Sounds ridiculous to me. They don’t determine the entire match, not even close.
As for pubs, they have stated they are going to address that to some extent. And to a large extent they already have by forcing every player in the match to have 1 of each class therefore you cannot get a loss by simply not having a soldier or engineer for example. They are also considering alternative weapons for each loadout so you won’t be screwed with a shotgun on a long range segment. More importantly at no point will you never have a long range option and since you’re a team of 5-6 players you can be pretty much sure that someone will have long range capability.
Having less choice during a match will even increase the length of time a player finds the game enjoyable because they will be tempted to switch out different loadouts in a meaningful manner rather than just switch willy nilly whenever they want. If they can just switch whenever they may get bored faster.
So in reference to your past paragraph it seems certain that you fall into the camp of player entitlement. Sorry but you’re not entitled. I’d certainly put game design and success over an individual desire. As far as that being a general consensus, I think you’re wrong. And more to the point, the game will be a f2p once its released and being a f2p they have to make money somehow. So they are most certainly going to be taking options away from players. They need to earn a living just like everyone else. As for this notion that you lose because you chose a bad configuration, it sounds like an excuse to me.
I agree with SockDog, give freedom to classes, because otherwise it will be the same run everytime, for every map, for every class. This would bore me to death after 10 hours of game. I hate playing as a medic because you have to go revive mates all the time, that’s your sole real purpose. The field ops is a great class because it weights significant fire power to cover mates and give ammo, but globally he does what he wants, and this is where the magic happens, all the fun, all the excitement, and all the versatility of the game. This is what makes it live through years. With fixes classes, be ready for a commercial failure. Some of the fun comes from being able to step out of your role in this game and give big surprises to your enemies. If you fix everything, you get CoD for stupid formatted gamers, GG
The loadouts are kinda strange to me, I’d rather have the choice at any time from the limbo menu. Again, more versability. And I can tell from in-game experience that you may lose a map if you dont have the right loadouts. Facing a team of shotgun medics doing the defense, you are screwed if you dont have the right tools. Ask Potty_200, or everyone playing on the Saturday night closed games.
And it’s SD, they won’t take options away from players, they will provide for the gamers and make it fair.
[QUOTE=Mustang;448380]
Or 7 loadouts with 1 from each class and 2 from any class.[/QUOTE]
i think mustangs got the idea of a negotiation with sd as to what we can have as a bare minimum. without it being too frustrating.
i’d be interested to know for those complaining about the system. How often do they actually exit the game to change a load out.
atm you have the choice and can change mid game. so maybe echo can reflect any actual loadout changes by players.
personally i often realise i didnt even bother selecting before i start.
i usually choose what i feel like playing as and not due to how i can win a game.
tbh in all previous sd games and now my class/character choice is mainly a selfish choice based on how i feel. and how I want to play the game.
a pub trait obviously but may reflect what others do. and in that case restriction isnt that big an issue. especially as i can change for the next map.
I would find this “loadout” idea pretty sexy with some changes:
Instead of applying guns to a specific class, let me pick a selection of guns, which then I can use for all classes.
Clearly, some weapons would be needed to be marked as “heavy weapon” and therefore only the soldier class might have enough force to carry them.
The gadgets should then be individual per class - as it is now.
This would give more freedom, to play the wished class and the weapons one needs.
This might also allow to have more charactertypes, which can use other weapon combinations … e.g. each character is only trained with specific weapons. Or even have a trade off, that you can use any gun - but with handicap. Well I guess this is getting to complicated already - but something along that.
^ Yeah the obvious compromise situation is to have the load-out system with character slots in which the ability/items of the same class vary (such as med packs vs Healing Station) chosen between rounds and then in game within the limbo menu pick the weapon options available to the class (Shotgun vs SMG vs AR etc) like we are used to in previous games that can vary throughout the round.
This is starting to sound like Brink’s load outs, with the only difference being changing between maps.
If it is possible to create a unique primary gun for each character, there should not be any alternative guns. So the characteristics of each character as individual can be fully maintained.
Tbh i dont want to see this change because certain players will play with one gun only all the time. To further prevent this, guns must be pretty equal, only small changes, there shouldnt be great differences within a gun type. Because that is why this weapon is an Assault rifle and not smg etc. But this works better with a small weapon pool.
Quantity does not mean quality.
More guns wont improve game experience, it increases the chance for the number of useless guns -> there is still a small choice of best weapons despite that there are 20 for each gun type with all different stats ofc.
Also i dont want weird balancing that one smg, machine pistol is better than some assault rifle. If relations of weapons are bad, they will be still bad. When every gun is useful, why should you change your weapon.
Still I prefer being forced to play 1 weapon for each char rather than having X same alternative weapons.
(sry this dilemma confuses me^^)
I wouldn’t say it was close to brink style at all (from what i remember) maybe you misunderstood the suggestion or we are looking at it from completely different points of view?
There’s no equipping 3 different attachments on each gun and having a selection of 10 different guns all with different stats that vary their accuracy/damage/handling depending on what attachment you use (like Brink did) - Stay away from this COD feature plz. .
The suggestion was basically addressing the weapon complaints of being unable to switch your primary weapon within the game depending on the environment you are fighting within while keeping the strategic decision of choosing which character’s ability set will best suit that round of play.
Like i said it was only a compromise suggestion, if you refer to my early post i actually was in favor of the load out system, it’s just i can see and sympathize with those complaining about the limited ability to change weapons within the game that are tied to certain character abilities.
(Edit: After watching a few brink video’s to remember it again - i kinda understand what you mean with abilities except brink had 999 abilities that were very odd/minor like grenade shooting or 3rd cam while capping spawn points (made me lol that spawn points in Brink > DB) in addition to a credit system which limited the selection of abilities - whereas the choice in DB is between medpacks or healing station / turrets vs mines - that are core mechanics tied to the class having a significant impact on the capabilities while playing that class rather than side gimmicks that are additional to the way you play that class - meaning the choice at the start of the round is more important to the overall outcome of that round)
if you go for a certain class you kinda expect to have distinctive weapons for each class. I doubt the game will benefit from alternative guns, the ultimate decisionmaker might be reduced to the primary weapon.
What if you could choose your favourite weapon for every char and if abilities dont appeal enough, a small number of chars will be played. Some might say, why should I play Char Z Y or W, if A in combination with this weapon is simply the best. I think this will reduce weapon diversity. Ppl tend to play with the “best” AR, Sniper, MG, Pistol etc.
I mean it makes sense so there are classes, every class with their own weapons and every char a master on its own with his gun.
And it saves some space for more different characters.
For me a weapon is the first reason to play a certain character. Abilities go on second since we still havent the full experience ^^
If I could choose the weapon to compensate the abilities, I might only choose the character who looks cool.