Reloading

[SockDog]

@Nail

LOL. Out of interest. In a real combat situation what is the accepted practice on when you should change a magazine?

[Nail]

when pucker factor allows, or empty.
But real combat is very different from game combat

in games 20 minutes of combat can take you across an entire map, irl, 20 minutes might get you to the next doorway

[darthmob]

I wonder if a melee attack while reloading will make you hit the other guy with your empty clip.

[Ragoo]

Losing your clip when you reload would be fine for me but only if the game has /kill so I don’t need to run back to the command post more often when no Soldier is around

[SockDog]

[quote=Nail;233940]when pucker factor allows, or empty.
But real combat is very different from game combat

in games 20 minutes of combat can take you across an entire map, irl, 20 minutes might get you to the next doorway[/quote]

Thanks, yeah I wouldn’t for a second assume the two were related. The topic just made me wonder if there was guidance given as to circumstances when you’d replace a partial mag with a full one before continuing.

I wonder if a melee attack while reloading will make you hit the other guy with your empty clip.

LOL. Like Saving Private Ryan. Clip, head gear and then gun.

[tokamak]

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.

It doesn’t need to be difficult either. The point is that you can spent some of your mental capacity and concentration on pulling off a quick reload if you think it’s necessary. This lengthens the skill curve without raising the bar for average players. The skill lies in determining whether you can actually afford to lose a bit of your concentration on reloading faster, or just keep your head at fighting a desperate battle and accept a slower reload.

Your Youtube video has a great comment underneath:
“it’s a FPS with the highest learning curve, so yeah, strategy and logic are a huge factor above newbie level play. Likewise, skill based movement and aim are also factors making Quake the greatest FPS franchise ever.”

That’s the whole point of the quick-reload and the ammo loss on reload. Players that can manage it will be able to make it an influential factor in the game. The base level of the game remains the same, but the advanced players can step their skills up a notch.

As for the entire comparison with Q3 that pops up lots of times, also in the deceased QW forums. They’re not similar games. Q3 is all about bodycounts while mission-based shooters are all about fulfilling the objective. A player who needs to concentrate on an overarching objective will engage combat in a different way than a player that needs to be the last man standing in a duel to score.

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.

The payoff is new area to excel in if the situation calls for it. It’s a reward for having good situational awareness.

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.

It’s only complex if you want to make it complex and know you can deal with the complexity. The base game stays the same. People won’t run out of ammo faster and people’s reload will stay the same. It’s only when you chose to pay attention to it you get to be able to pull advantages out of it.

Plus resupply is not always guaranteed and I don’t want to rely on trailing back to the command post constantly.

Same goes for health, resupply of health isn’t guaranteed as well either. And again, players aren’t supposed to run out of ammo faster on average. I shouldn’t have to keep repeating all this.

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.

I went through many reformulations of my point and I don’t think I can say it any differently, it’s not supposed to make the basic game more complex, these options are there for people who want to make use of it.

All the new stuff on the market is so darn slow compared to old school fps games, its a real pity :(.

I don’t think it is, Quake and UT still got very strong player bases. You can hop right in and join them, which I frequently do.

[SockDog]

Did you watch the video? Did you notice the winner actually missed a lot of shots and won through his better strategy? This all in a twitch shooter which, yes, is highly reliant on movement and aim but wide open depth is there for those who want it.

And my point was that Q3 illustrates that you don’t need fixed game mechanics to add depth. Those who want to raise the bar by leveraging the actual game via strategy can do so. What you want to do is introduce mini-games in the middle of an FPS and label them skill challenges which add depth. Why not also add a similar mechanic to all timed actions, planting, defusing, transmitting, healing, reviving, backstabs? Very quickly the optional “Skills” become required necessities and the game’s learning curve blows through the roof.

[tokamak]

[QUOTE=SockDog;233951]Did you watch the video? Did you notice the winner actually missed a lot of shots and won through his better strategy? This all in a twitch shooter which, yes, is highly reliant on movement and aim but wide open depth is there for those who want it.

And my point was that Q3 illustrates that you don’t need fixed game mechanics to add depth. Those who want to raise the bar by leveraging the actual game via strategy can do so. What you want to do is introduce mini-games in the middle of an FPS and label them skill challenges which add depth. [/QUOTE]

I don’t think Q3 is a fair comparison here. The game goes out from an entirely different premise than Brink does. And yes, getting a perfect reload is a mini-game, it doesn’t need to be difficult mini-game just enough to attract your attention during combat, so the skill actually lies not in completing the mini-game but deeming when it’s appropriate to spend attention on it. I have yet to see anyone respond to this point.

Why not also add a similar mechanic to all timed actions, planting, defusing, transmitting, healing, reviving, backstabs? Very quickly the optional “Skills” become required necessities and the game’s learning curve blows through the roof.

This is what I think is the best argument against my thesis. If applied to the reload, then why not apply it to all, turning the entire game into one based on gimmicks. A nightmare.

The differentiating factor between reloading and all the others is that reloading is a necessity to continue the fight. This means that you frequently find yourself in a shoot-out during reloading. In a shoot-out there are many things to take account of, you might want to be dodging, looking for cover, avoiding explosives, helping team-mates, switching to other weapons etc etc . This is not the case for objective-type of interactions, like planting, defusing, transmitting or hacking. You can call these ‘out of combat’ actions. You either chose to idle or you don’t and participate in the combat around you, while as for reloading you need to do the action in order to participate in the combat again.

That’s what I think is an important difference that entitles reload for this mechanic and the rest not. As for revives and back-stabs, those seem to be instant anyway, and rightly so.

[jazevec]

I would like to try the game with “wasteful” (magazine-based) reloading before voicing any harsh opinions. I encourage you to be open-minded just like me.

Reloading is quite monotonous in Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. I don’t mean it’s especially grindy or even annoying - just a bit silly. In vast majority of cases, about 5 seconds from a firefight’s end everyone nearby starts reloading. It’s cliche, and quite pointless. Decision-making is all but eliminated from reloading, it just becomes something everyone does in mostly the same moments.

I played a game with “wasteful” reloading - Tremulous, ( http://tremulous.net ) a free standalone FPS/RTS hybrid. It’s space marines, and in there magazine-based reloading model is very useful to keep humans in check. Humans have superior ranged combat abilities and if they could reload on a whim the action would be much less tense and dramatic. I think it’s a brilliant fit in that game. It makes you think a bit.

I don’t see why reloading must stay the same way in Brink (as in W:ET or ET:QW). First, there are sidearms. Even before akimbo upgrade, W:ET (pistol was a decent weapon in hands of a skilled player. Second, preview videos show rifles can be used to club people. Third, following Enemy Territory tradition Brink movement is quite fast paced and being caught with empty magazine is not always hopeless. Fourth, enhanced movement system (SMART) should provide extra ways out of sticky situations.
In short, I think Brink can take it.

[DepressedOptimist]

I think Deus Ex used to throw away bullets for reloading before the magazine was empty. As far as multiplayer games go I’m happy with conserving ammo.

A “perfect reload” system like the one in Gears of War is a cool idea.

[DarkangelUK]

So pressing the reload button once has become a chore, pressing it twice will become a chore… miss-timing the press twice will become a chore that pisses you off. I see no benefit to adding an annoyance to something that has already been classed as a chore. I could possibly see it working if miss-timing only meant you still went through the same reload mechanic, and getting it perfect gave you a faster reload… but penalizing for a mini-game will not work for a game that already has so much happening in it.

[BioSnark]

Humans have superior ranged combat abilities and if they could reload on a whim the action would be much less tense and dramatic. I think it’s a brilliant fit in that game. It makes you think a bit.

Well, yes… As I mentioned previously, reloading has a different role in most ranged versus melee games if range > melee in a head-on confrontation.

I think a number of us opposed to the idea in Brink have tried other reload systems as mentioned.

[SockDog]

I don’t think Q3 is a fair comparison here. The game goes out from an entirely different premise than Brink does. And yes, getting a perfect reload is a mini-game, it doesn’t need to be difficult mini-game just enough to attract your attention during combat, so the skill actually lies not in completing the mini-game but deeming when it’s appropriate to spend attention on it. I have yet to see anyone respond to this point.

I mention Q3 only to discuss the issue of depth through adding “mini-games” not so much the appropriateness of a reloading mechanism in Brink vs Q3.

I’ve attempted to respond to that point by stating that if completing it becomes a learned skill then there is no choice, you do it all the time and so everyone has to do it or be penalised. If success is not assured then you’re really introducing a random situation, a gamble, which could just as easily be implemented via a random dice roll.

This is what I think is the best argument against my thesis. If applied to the reload, then why not apply it to all, turning the entire game into one based on gimmicks. A nightmare.

The differentiating factor between reloading and all the others is that reloading is a necessity to continue the fight. This means that you frequently find yourself in a shoot-out during reloading. In a shoot-out there are many things to take account of, you might want to be dodging, looking for cover, avoiding explosives, helping team-mates, switching to other weapons etc etc . This is not the case for objective-type of interactions, like planting, defusing, transmitting or hacking. You can call these ‘out of combat’ actions. You either chose to idle or you don’t and participate in the combat around you, while as for reloading you need to do the action in order to participate in the combat again.

That’s what I think is an important difference that entitles reload for this mechanic and the rest not. As for revives and back-stabs, those seem to be instant anyway, and rightly so.

You can segregate them as much as you want but your argument for a “skilled” reload is equally applicable for a “skilled” plant or hack or anything based on a specific time. Reloading in half the time is as much a bonus as planting in half the time and then returning to a defensive position. etc

Even grenades and medpacks have a recharge time, why not implement something that increases that based on a defined action.

I’d probably go as far as saying that these are just mini-game based perks and as such could be applicable to any action in the game if you attached the correct mini-game invocation.

Regardless. I think our theoretical discussion has no definite conclusion as the answer really lies with the developers and the rest of the game. I’m sure such features wouldn’t be hard to mod in after the fact so there might be an opportunity to test it out first hand. I just don’t think there is necessarily a right or wrong answer here given what we know about Brink.

[BioSnark]

and speaking of plants, don’t trick plants ‘reward skill’ and such?

[Nos]

Can we please all agree that the wasteful reload isn’t going to happen so tokamak can stop trying to defend the same point over and over?

[INF3RN0]

[QUOTE=tokamak;233950]
I don’t think it is, Quake and UT still got very strong player bases. You can hop right in and join them, which I frequently do.[/QUOTE]

Remember I said “new” as in recent, that usually doesn’t include sequels . Most people I have talked to didn’t like the last set in those series compared to the originals as well (I heard Q4 got better with some patches), but I digress. I just haven’t seen most of the gaming industry able to replicate the great qualities of those old classics as of late; $$$ corrupts the mind. Point was that I like those games for a lot of reasons, but I wouldn’t mind coming across something new that I found just as enjoyable (not just same game, new graphics) or seeing sequels bring improvements rather than surrendering their originality to cash crop games like COD.

[INF3RN0]

Can we please all agree that the wasteful reload isn’t going to happen so tokamak can stop trying to defend the same point over and over?

It won’t so don’t worry. I would be satisfied if someone just said “no because I say so”, but I think he wants to try and persuade the 99.9% of us who said no thanks that we are missing something .

[jazevec]

[QUOTE=BioSnark;234005]
I think a number of us opposed to the idea in Brink have tried other reload systems as mentioned.[/QUOTE]

I think there’s a simpler explanation. Inertia and fear of change. Many people are not capable of running such a thought experiment in their heads. Not everyone understands the consequences of wasteful reload, not everyone can appreciate it. Many people are completely fine with no-brainers, even if it means they have to press “reload” 5 seconds after every fight. I like learning new things, others see it as an effort.

[INF3RN0]

I think there’s a simpler explanation. Inertia and fear of change. Many people are not capable of running such a thought experiment in their heads. Not everyone understands the consequences of wasteful reload, not everyone can appreciate it. Many people are completely fine with no-brainers, even if it means they have to press “reload” 5 seconds after every fight. I like learning new things, others see it as an effort.

That is a terrible way to look at it. You can’t just say that there is no good reason to oppose something like that just because people are afraid to put in the extra effort. Very silly attempt there… of course I remember you saying the same exact thing in promod conversations, and it clearly shows that you lack an understanding of what you are talking about.

[jazevec]

That is a terrible way to look at it. You can’t just say that there is no good reason to oppose something like that just because people are afraid to put in the extra effort. Very silly attempt there… of course I remember you saying the same exact thing in promod conversations, and it clearly shows that you lack an understanding of what you are talking about.

Care to explain ? All you have here is a claim I can’t do that. An opinion. How about an argument ? Prove me wrong.