Reloading

(Nail) #61

micro managing trivial aspects of a shooter makes me laugh, I’ll stick with my 100 round drum and let you guys play inventory managment and die

:tongue:

(tokamak) #62

You’ll find that the bigger your clip, the more careful you’ll have to be about reloading with ammo-loss present.

(Nail) #63

You’ll find a larger magazine allows you to move on, back off or just kill people while they reload

(tokamak) #64

It also means that when you run relatively low, like getting to 10% or 20% you lose 10 or 20 bullets with that reload. Having smaller clips means you have smaller portions to lose.

But yeah. The longevity combined makes the longer reload times usually worth it, I prefer it as well.

(Nail) #65

my 20% is your full magazine, I ain’t swapping out with 20 rounds left

(DarkangelUK) #66

You’ll find this more than likely isn’t going to happen, and everyone is politely saying (i.e. don’t want an infraction) that it’s a bloody stupid idea. Struggling to find anyone in this thread that finds it even ‘ok’ for Brink

(tokamak) #67

You’ll find a way to finish it till the last few rounds? Good, that means you’ll benefit under this system. That’s the kind of behaviour that should be rewarded.

I’d rather hear have people telling why they don’t like it (preferably with reasons other than 'the rest doesn’t like it) than people repeating that they don’t like it (you’re free to do so, it’s just not really useful for anyone). I think it’s something that would fit Brink it gives experts something to excel in and the rest can just ignore it.

(SockDog) #68

You say you like it because it adds depth and yet you look at something like Quake3/Live and there is immense strategy there without it.

I don’t think anyone is saying that the mechanic is flawed only that its use isn’t a guarantee of increased enjoyment (because that is what I think we play games for) just by implementing it. Only SD could really be in any position to comment on whether it would work because they have a more intimate understanding of the whole game, from the snippet Exedore posted it seems like they made that decision already.

I guess I’m saying that you shouldn’t be doing something just because you can.

(shirosae) #69

For far too long, FPS games have used just the delay involved in reloading to punish people who reload at suboptimal times, by letting other players shoot them in the face without risk of return fire. That makes the danger involved in reloading mainly revolve around the aiming skill of the other player - which takes away from the importance of reloading as a skill in its own right.

By augmenting that delay with some mechanism that occupies player awareness (maybe some sort of QTE system or minigame) to optimise the number of bullets and reload time you create a completely new skill separate from aiming and shooting, so gameplay isn’t just about aiming and shooting skills, but also reloading skills too.

(tokamak) #70

[QUOTE=SockDog;233884]You say you like it because it adds depth and yet you look at something like Quake3/Live and there is immense strategy there without it.

I don’t think anyone is saying that the mechanic is flawed only that its use isn’t a guarantee of increased enjoyment (because that is what I think we play games for) just by implementing it. Only SD could really be in any position to comment on whether it would work because they have a more intimate understanding of the whole game, from the snippet Exedore posted it seems like they made that decision already.

I guess I’m saying that you shouldn’t be doing something just because you can.[/QUOTE]

I agree with that, there’s a whole bunch of features that could best be left out. But these are two features I’d like to see more occur in these types of games.

Quale3 always gets brought up when we’re talking about depth and adding new features. I don’t think Quake only has depth in one particular area and that’s the art of moving and aiming. Both ET games have been way more attractive to me as they offered other areas to excel in, that’s what I love about these games. Even if your hand-eye coordination sucked you could still outsmart the opponents by assessing the situation better than them.

For that same reason I’d like to see these reload mechanics added, they open a new area to excel in, areas that are relevant to the overall game, after all, how you treat the reloading all depends on your overall judgement of the scenario. and not just additions for the sake of additions (I think Bioshock’s pipeline hack mini-game is a great example of an adding something for the sake of adding something).

As for increased enjoyment. Having these options open to you means you have more (optional!) methods to outwit your enemy, for me, that’s highly satisfying and enjoyable.

[QUOTE=shirosae;233886]For far too long, FPS games have used just the delay involved in reloading to punish people who reload at suboptimal times, by letting other players shoot them in the face without risk of return fire. That makes the danger involved in reloading mainly revolve around the aiming skill of the other player - which takes away from the importance of reloading as a skill in its own right.

By augmenting that delay with some mechanism that occupies player awareness (maybe some sort of QTE system or minigame) to optimise the number of bullets and reload time you create a completely new skill separate from aiming and shooting, so gameplay isn’t just about aiming and shooting skills, but also reloading skills too.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, just like maintaining turrets, healing friendlies, sabotaging, capturing points are all separate skills as well. Players aren’t forced to do any of these, they can ignore everything (even the reload mechanisms) and focus on shooting.

I can understand that people don’t want the game to get oversaturate with these tricks. But I don’t see that, as long as they’re optional there would be any risk of saturation. You can also compare it to SMART, you can take the conventional SMART button, or you can chose to do it, which does require more effort but can result in better performance on the battlefield.

It’s a form of micro-management, yes. But as long as micro-management isn’t compulsory to be good at this game (which these two mechanisms are not), but merely something players can chose to take further if they want to (if they’ve got spare brain capacity when the situation isn’t complicated enough for them) to lift themselves above the rest.

(Nos) #71

I’m sorry, but tokamak, thats the stupidest thing in a fast paced fps ever. They most likely won’t put this in, and if they did that would be ridiculous.

(INF3RN0) #72

Having to base your actions on how much ammo you have at a given moment and how much you might lose if you need a full clip is not something I want to be distracted with. As a result people will be forced to play very defensively and conserve ammo, leading to slow paced game play. I am quite sure that this won’t be considered likewise, but that concept is basically why I dislike the idea.

Add* Plus choosing when to reload in the first place is enough depth to this area already imo.

(Nail) #73

a 100 round drum negates the need to manage 5 x 20 round magazines

(tokamak) #74

Ammo scarcity as a result of this can be compensated, that’s not really a problem.

Getting distracted by it however, is the whole point. You can chose how much of your concentration you want to spent on being more efficient. Sometimes it’s worthwhile and sometimes it’s not, the point is that the option is always there in case you opt for it.

That’s only the case with a constant stream of enemies, when they attack in waves you want to have a full drum to bring the weapon’s largest strength to effect.

(Joshua Morrison) #75

I’m not against you, Tokamak, I just don’ think it would work in Brink.

I’m also not a fan of the active reload in Gears just because it increase bullet damage which is unrealistic/stupid IMO, I do like the idea of it just reloading faster at the cost of messing up and jamming because that adds a lot of dept that casuals can just over look.

Also your right about the ammo thing, even if people reload after shooting five bullets if they wasted their last clip they should be able to find an ammo create. So level design should keep players from camping to conserve ammo…

(tokamak) #76

I don’t want more powerful bullets either, just a faster reload will do.

Also your right about the ammo thing, even if people reload after shooting five bullets if they wasted their last clip they should be able to find an ammo create. So level design should keep players from camping to conserve ammo…

Ammo scarcity is something that should be balanced all-round. There’s three sources of ammo at the moment: Soldiers, command posts, and respawns, all three points need to be tuned in order to maintain the right amount of bullets (and grenades at that) in order for the game to remain fun. What I’m suggesting is merely a mechanic that allows players to put extra effort into conserving ammo if they deem it necessary.

(SockDog) #77

[quote=tokamak;233887]I agree with that, there’s a whole bunch of features that could best be left out. But these are two features I’d like to see more occur in these types of games.

Quale3 always gets brought up when we’re talking about depth and adding new features. I don’t think Quake only has depth in one particular area and that’s the art of moving and aiming. Both ET games have been way more attractive to me as they offered other areas to excel in, that’s what I love about these games. Even if your hand-eye coordination sucked you could still outsmart the opponents by assessing the situation better than them.

For that same reason I’d like to see these reload mechanics added, they open a new area to excel in, areas that are relevant to the overall game, after all, how you treat the reloading all depends on your overall judgement of the scenario. and not just additions for the sake of additions (I think Bioshock’s pipeline hack mini-game is a great example of an adding something for the sake of adding something).

As for increased enjoyment. Having these options open to you means you have more (optional!) methods to outwit your enemy, for me, that’s highly satisfying and enjoyable[/quote]

But it seems again that you’re looking to formulate all gameplay into some fixed mechanic. It’s hardly optional if learning it gives you an edge or if you need to sacrifice a holy perk slot to balance things out. Put it this way, to be “optional” it would either need to be insanely easy as to be pointless or insanely difficult as to be of little impact on the gameplay. Anything in the middle seems to require everyone to do it or be penalised.

As it is, the addition needs a payoff and to me that payoff of added complexity comes at the detriment to players becoming frustrated or bored.

Watch this [ESL Classics: Rapha vs. Cooller - Youtube]. Q3 has depth way beyond moving fast and aiming well and this shows you that situational awareness is actually far more important to success than aim or movement. It seems that what you actually enjoy is a game that has clearer more defined rules to operate within.

(AnthonyDa) #78

Feel free to mod the game and add your ****ty reload system tokamot.

(Nail) #79

“That’s only the case with a constant stream of enemies, when they attack in waves you want to have a full drum to bring the weapon’s largest strength to effect.”

but I ain’t alone, I have seven buddies, drum mags can allow the entire team to move forward, especially against a bunch of inventory clerks

(INF3RN0) #80

[QUOTE=tokamak;233902]Ammo scarcity as a result of this can be compensated, that’s not really a problem.

Getting distracted by it however, is the whole point. You can chose how much of your concentration you want to spent on being more efficient. Sometimes it’s worthwhile and sometimes it’s not, the point is that the option is always there in case you opt for it.[/QUOTE]

I understand what it does, but I just wouldn’t like it in Brink. There is plenty of content already, as well as that of the RPG. No need to over complicate. Plus resupply is not always guaranteed and I don’t want to rely on trailing back to the command post constantly. When I am playing a shooter, I want as little as possible to be between me and my trigger finger. Although this scenario would present more tactical thinking about when you would engage, it would completely alter the speed at which I normally enjoy playing. I just don’t like it, and the games I have played where this is present tend to have large clips and be Coop PvE. Too many tactics slow things down greatly, and I would hate to lose the classic arcade shooter in all of it. I would say that that’s where you draw the line, which is why most people are against it. All the new stuff on the market is so darn slow compared to old school fps games, its a real pity :(.