Reaction thus far

RasteRayzeR · 2013-02-18 14:52:17 UTC

I agree with Apples. This will be a pc game with all the benefits it gets. Lets make this the next W:ET. After brink, I believe this is the way to go to unite the whole ID soft and SD community under the same game

Patriotqube · 2013-02-18 15:00:23 UTC

wow ^^

Anyway as you can see here in quote i didnt say i wanted WET2, i said i wanted a game i could play for years to come.

[QUOTE=Patriotqube;428369]I have lots of people asking me if DB is going to be the next WET, not that they want it to be WET, but to be a game they will play for years to come.

That wound happen unless we gets the core gamemechanics right, movement and gunhandling, preferably as close to WET as possible[/QUOTE]

Im not asking for copypaste im asking for that we use those things that has kept WET alive for almost 10 years even after PB has stopped its support, and that is funny enough the core gamemechanics like movements and gunhandling.

i kinda think thats goes under “getting inspiration from”

Maca · 2013-02-18 15:00:55 UTC

Yes
Making the game popular by trying to make it appealing to vast majority, or just making it appealing to one group is not how you get an F2P game that gets a lot of players, especially since there’s Quake online. The key is to make the game unique. Many of the recent F2P games that have gained a lot of popularity are games that are unique. They bring something new to the table for modern gamers, that’s the only reason to play these games. Hawken: mechs and prolonged battles, Planetside 2: massive vehicular combat, Tribes: skiing, TF2: truly unique classes and weapons (slightly cheating since didn’t start as F2P)

Currently I’m having trouble seeing anything that unique in the game
I agree with people who want to make this fast-paced, because it’s unique in the POV of majority of todays games. The same reason I believe the core mechanics of guns should be based on no-spread. Whether damage is closer to RTCW or QW can be debated on.
Another problem is the guns are just regular guns, I would wish to see some really new features as mentioned in http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/34576-Perception-of-the-internet-toward-DirtyBomb?p=427050&viewfull=1#post427050. Just adding customization isn’t enough or innovative in any way.
The objective type gameplay is sort of unique but elements of it have been copied by many games recently, so if something interesting could be added it would be good, or just “polish” it so much that it can’t be compared to those others. Because currently it is no selling point.
Agree with Apples, in that we shouldn’t copy previous SD games, but I believe we should be closer to them in spirit than any “realistic” game, because those are unique in the eyes of current gamers. But that isn’t enough, there needs to be also something that really hasn’t been in any other games, perhaps a certain combination of elements.

The point is don’t try to make it appealing for majority of gamers, nor should you make it appealing to a certain group, but try to look for something that isn’t in the market currently, and if you can adopt that something into the game the players always looking for NEW things will come.

Kendle · 2013-02-18 15:02:21 UTC

And yet when RTCW occupied that hole it was twice as lethal as DB and no-one complained about first to shoot wins.

I’m not saying “make it like COD so COD players like it”, I’m just saying before we replace gun fights with pillow fights cos the guns are so weak we’d do more damage with a piece of fabric, let’s recognise that majoring on long drawn out gun fights to the exclusion of reflexes, situational awareness or any of the other skills FPS games typically feature is not going to inspire the kind of player base this game could use. I just don’t think there’s a large enough remaining player-base in ET / ET:QW to give this game the numbers it’s going to need, especially as it’s F2P and SD need to make money out of it somehow.

The guns can be way more deadly without getting anywhere near first to shoot wins, and without losing the RTCW / ET magic IMO. We’re in danger of becoming too fixated on one particular aspect of the game IMO, and losing sight of what we’re all claiming we want, a successful successor to previous SD games.

Apples · 2013-02-18 15:05:14 UTC

@ Rasterayzer : You agree on the opposite I just said?

I might have edited in between, as said I dont really want the game to be “the next wolf et”, I want the game to be dirtybomb with elements from ET, elements from quake, new elements etc etc, copypasta will never really work IMO because too much people will think that this’ll be W:ET2 :

“Whaaaat where are the nazis!”
“Whaaaaat its not idtech3?”
“Whaaaaat one weapon per class, why not all thee same?”

I go extreme here but if you market this game as W:ET2, people will expect W:ET2… Its as simple as that. Market the game as a fast, class-based shooter developped from pc gamers for pc gamers, without noob friendly unibutton, no OP knife (I’ll try to place this one in each of my post now ^^), in a devastated London with good maps (I mean really good maps!), good pace, tracking AND fun during the firefights, Free2play philosophy (no pay2win, many game modes, community involvment if possible).

Well this is indeed incredibly hard to balance and manage, but I think SD got things pretty much in contrôl with Warchest so they might take all the time they need to deliver a proper game

Ruben0s · 2013-02-18 15:05:43 UTC

Patch got released and it changed some of the damage / rate of fire on guns.

Adjusted rate of fire & damage on many weapons

Adjusted spread & recoil on many weapons

Adjusted ammo counts on some weapons

RasteRayzeR · 2013-02-18 15:19:38 UTC

I really hope for 15 maps with good interactions, PhyX and a gameplay that makes me keep playing even if I lose a few maps in a row.

As an old quaker, I deperately need a game that is made for pc and only for it. And SD did the best thing they could by opening the alpha to the community. I trust them 100% blindely.

INF3RN0 · 2013-02-18 17:27:51 UTC

[QUOTE=Kendle;428331]Not really Inferno, reflexes matter less if other things matter more.

For example, if it takes 7 body-shots to kill (forget head-shots for the moment) and I hit you with 6 bullets while you hit me with 7, you win. Seems reasonable on the face of it. But if 3 of my 6 bullets hit you before any of your 7 hit me, I had better reflexes, yet that counted for nothing. Tracking entirely trumps reflexes in this scenario (this is assuming we see each other at the same time, of course camping could’ve contributed to me hitting you first).

In practise it’s likely that if my bullets hit you before yours hit me, I’d probably win anyway, but the fact it’s theoretically possible for tracking to trump reflexes entirely means it’s not true to say reflexes don’t lose any importance.

Ideally I’d like both reflexes and tracking to matter equally, but out in the wider gaming world I suspect there’s a large body of players who’d want reflexes to matter even more, thereby putting them off this game.

Certainly I can’t imagine going to cadred.org or tek-9.org and telling pro CS and COD4 players fresh from their prize money LANs that their game of choice takes no skill because reflexes play too much of a role in the outcome of a gun-fight.

Now we might not need pro CS and COD4 players to embrace this game (they wouldn’t anyway, because it’s not one-life-per-round, which is the ultimate in “pro” gaming as far as they’re concerned), but it’d certainly help if more than a few 100 ex ET / ET:QW players were interested in this game. In fact it’d help if there were more non ET / ET:QW players in the Alpha tbh.[/QUOTE]

Don’t rule out the fact that in the ETQW model was only 1 bullet more than RTCW for headshots and differs from RTCW in TTK by only around 0.1 second due to the lower RoF. The real difference with ETQW is that body shot damage was significantly less, meaning that if you didn’t have the reflex and aim to land those 3 headshots first you were punished for your lack of aim. The TTK for headshots in ETQW is actually faster than that of DB as well. I certainly don’t mind if the numbers are similar, but the system greatly rewarded better and more consistent aimers and closed the luck factor gap fairly well. This the reason why ETQW players are so avid about the system being an improvement on the others, as it really made it more of a challenge. If people with good reflexes were only able to hit the head once or if a great tracker got 50% body shots, they would both lose to someone who reacted first and was able to track the head for that extra ms. In reality it’s not really a huge difference, but it only looks that way to people who are used to getting a fast kill whether they can pixel aim on the head or not.

Don’t get the idea that I am saying COD takes no skill. The skill is still there, however the skill gap is significantly less because the requirements are less. The amount of skill difference between players becomes so thin at a point that people gain consistency through small details of perfection. A pro COD player will even tell you that a game like ET offers more of a flat aim challenge and those COD players that have the ability to track on top of their reflexes gain even more advantage. I am all for a good balance between the two, but I surely don’t want things to be so reflexive based with the slower speed of DB and I also want head aim to almost be a requirement.

Dragonji · 2013-02-18 17:44:30 UTC

W:ET has got its own critical problems. Same applies to both QW and Brink. No need to copy any of those games, just take as much as possible of what was the best about these games and make a new damn good Dirty Bomb franchise so players can pay SD with a pleasure for in-game items for years.

HellToupee · 2013-02-19 07:00:32 UTC

[QUOTE=Kendle;428380]And yet when RTCW occupied that hole it was twice as lethal as DB and no-one complained about first to shoot wins.
[/QUOTE]

Which is complete BS, 3 HS vs 4 is not twice as lethal, and body shots hell it was less lethal considering medics had up to 140hp and everyone else 125hp, that was 11(+1 to account for the regen that was happening at all times) body shots to kill a medic with the mp40.

Kendle · 2013-02-19 08:08:14 UTC

RTCW was 2 head-shots for a kill, maybe you’re thinking ET? Anyway, by lethality I’m talking TTK (time to kill). RTCW is twice as lethal as DB (at least it was pre-patch) because it takes half the time to kill someone, partly due to the higher ROF rather than the damage.

edit: some stats for comparison, compiled by INF3RN0, Evil-Doer, Valdez

http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/34254-DB-V15404-Weapon-Stats-(By-INF3RN0-Evil-Doer-Valdez)

warbie · 2013-02-19 10:33:29 UTC

There’s other things to take into account. In RTCW and ET the front lines were much clearer - we’re defending here, they’re coming from there. Lethality aside, the maps were less chaotic and there were less instances of people getting the drop on each other.

Agreed, but the surroundings do play a significant part in this. Take BF3 - a game that often pisses me off royally due to the randomness. It’s not uncommon to be faced with multiple places that an enemy could be hiding - you’re about to run out a doorway and there’s equal chance they’re to the left of you hiding behind a car, or a skip, or behind a wall, or to the right in a door way, or laying in a bush, or in any no. of overlooking windows. The more places there are to hide and the more flanking routes the less situational awareness comes to play and the more blind luck sticks it’s head in . In RTCW and ET the maps were more arena like and punctuated with key choke points - putting the emphasis more on aiming and movement skill and teamplay. DB currently falls some place between RTCW/ET and CoD/BF and still comes across as a tdm experience with objectives thrown in - I find myself getting shot in the back and side more in DB than ever in RTCW or ET. This is the main reason I don’t want the lethality of guns to be improved and would like to try reducing the rof.

Kendle · 2013-02-19 11:10:25 UTC

After yesterday’s patch I’d agree with that, and I consider it a “good thing” overall.

I’m not sure weapon behaviour has much impact on that. Classes are still not well enough defined IMO, like the fact you still don’t really need a F/Ops even though ammo drop has been changed to only give half a clip. The fact you can still run around the map as a lone-wolf Medic means people will until something’s done to stop it.

At the end of the day the game needs to provide some sense of authenticity. If it’s set in London (a real place, as opposed to a fantasy sci-fi quake-esque environment) then it needs to look like London, with buildings and streets and cars and rubbish bins etc. And if the players are equipped with semi-realistic weapons they need to look and behave semi-realistically.

RTCW / ET got away with the “arena” feel because it wasn’t really attempting to be a WWII game, it was set in a fantasy version of WWII with the corresponding theme of the SP coming through to the MP (most of RTCW’s MP maps were re-worked versions of SP levels and of course ET was originally supposed to be an expansion pack for RTCW).

I like where the game is at the moment. A bit more diversity in weapons across the classes, and a bit more definition of each class’s role would be nice. But trying to make the game a perfect arena shooter where every engagement is “fair” on both parties would kill the authenticity of the game IMO.

Chris2 · 2013-02-19 13:09:56 UTC

Totally agree, I think all the past games (even wolf09) did something good and DB should attempt to emulate certain aspects whilst trying to remain fresh and relevant.

HellToupee · 2013-02-19 14:03:22 UTC

[QUOTE=Kendle;428641]RTCW was 2 head-shots for a kill, maybe you’re thinking ET? Anyway, by lethality I’m talking TTK (time to kill). RTCW is twice as lethal as DB (at least it was pre-patch) because it takes half the time to kill someone, partly due to the higher ROF rather than the damage.
[/QUOTE]

It was 3, only possible to 2 HS kill someone if they were a non medic class on a team without any medics aka never.

HS did 50 damage, with 4 medics on team everyone had 125 base health and medics had 140.

Kendle · 2013-02-19 14:19:34 UTC

OK, I stand corrected, fact still remains that doing 100 HP damage in RTCW takes half the time that doing 100 HP damage does (or did) in DB, ergo, RTCW = quite a bit more lethal if not technically, to the nth decimal place, twice as lethal.

Thing is, when ET first came out and increased the TTK the very vast majority of the RTCW scene considered this to be “dumbing down” the game. Now we’re arguing that reducing the TTK is dumbing down the game. I find it quite amusing tbh, I wish there were more oldskool RTCW players here to see this.

RasteRayzeR · 2013-02-19 14:41:40 UTC

I’m a 100% with you on this Kendle

warbie · 2013-02-19 15:32:54 UTC

[QUOTE=Kendle;428677]I’m not sure weapon behaviour has much impact on that. Classes are still not well enough defined IMO, like the fact you still don’t really need a F/Ops even though ammo drop has been changed to only give half a clip. The fact you can still run around the map as a lone-wolf Medic means people will until something’s done to stop it.

At the end of the day the game needs to provide some sense of authenticity. If it’s set in London (a real place, as opposed to a fantasy sci-fi quake-esque environment) then it needs to look like London, with buildings and streets and cars and rubbish bins etc. And if the players are equipped with semi-realistic weapons they need to look and behave semi-realistically.

RTCW / ET got away with the “arena” feel because it wasn’t really attempting to be a WWII game, it was set in a fantasy version of WWII with the corresponding theme of the SP coming through to the MP (most of RTCW’s MP maps were re-worked versions of SP levels and of course ET was originally supposed to be an expansion pack for RTCW).

I like where the game is at the moment. A bit more diversity in weapons across the classes, and a bit more definition of each class’s role would be nice. But trying to make the game a perfect arena shooter where every engagement is “fair” on both parties would kill the authenticity of the game IMO.[/QUOTE]

Each to their own. I’m not fussed about authenticity and realism in video games, more how they feel and play, but appreciate that many people do. I don’t want a pure arena shooter btw, but do like an even playing field and would rather things were further along that scale. I do think the current maps are responsible for lone wolfing and the general lack of teamplay, though, even more so than the ammo situation and current class roles/skills. Plenty of side routes and hiding places enables lone wolfing, makes it an effective way of playing. It also adds a healthy element of chance. Deadlier weapons would be ok without this randomness, but not when it’s so easy to get the drop on people. I often get frustrated in DB when someone pops out of a hiding spot and shoots me in the back, and don’t get much satisfaction doing likewise to them - this wasn’t the case with RTCW.

Kendle · 2013-02-19 15:52:46 UTC

Just to be clear, I didn’t mean “authentic” as in “realistic”, I just meant if it’s supposed to be set in London it needs to look like London (as opposed to some fantasy city-scape designed purely as a “skin” on top of a basic, flat paneled, couldn’t exist in the real world, arena). In other words there needs to be pretty much what there already is in order to sell the back-story behind the game.

I do agree that there are more routes / buildings / hiding places etc., but still, I’d rather that than a sterile 2D world in which no-one can ever take you by surprise. I get frustrated when someone pops out of a hiding spot etc., I just make sure I check that hiding spot next time I pass that way.

HellToupee · 2013-02-19 17:35:50 UTC

[QUOTE=Kendle;428744]OK, I stand corrected, fact still remains that doing 100 HP damage in RTCW takes half the time that doing 100 HP damage does (or did) in DB, ergo, RTCW = quite a bit more lethal if not technically, to the nth decimal place, twice as lethal.

Thing is, when ET first came out and increased the TTK the very vast majority of the RTCW scene considered this to be “dumbing down” the game. Now we’re arguing that reducing the TTK is dumbing down the game. I find it quite amusing tbh, I wish there were more oldskool RTCW players here to see this. :)[/QUOTE]

lethal is when they die of which max health is a factor, the difference is 1 bullet with all HS and for every body shot that narrows.

TTK was way down on any list people had about dumbing down, some felt quite the opposite with the reduced spread which with good aim meant TTK was lowered out to longer ranges rather was because it reduced any need to manage your firerate. Neither was RTCW was not known for short TTK not that was games like medal of honor allied assault.