Reloading

(MadJack) #121

After reading most of the posts in this thread I have to give my two bucks’s worth.

I think it’s a bad idea to implement a quick reload gratification mini game. But, if SD decided to opt-in on it, it has to be done in a way that those who, like me, don’t want to use it are not penalized in any way.

The premise of Alien Swarm–I will use that game since it’s the only one I have played in recent years that use this scheme–is first and foremost, a top-down game. You can see aliens coming at you from any direction, if any are in the area, and you also have the radar pinpointing their activity. With the top-down view you can easily assess the potential threat level around you. You also have three teammates that, usually, are very close to your own position and can back you up if the need arises (you fail your quick reload).

With Brink although you should have teammates close, it might not be the case. You also are limited in your POV. Meaning you can only see what’s in front of you. It’s not a 360 view. If someone creeps behind you and you fail your quick reload, you will most likely have to wait to respawn.

In Alien Swarm the pace is self-set. There are no objectives to fulfill, time is pretty much standing still if you’re not moving forward. Of course some aliens will spawn to nudge you forward but that’s the extend of it. Aliens are triggered-spawned and are not human controlled. They follow easy to guess navigation paths and do not ambush and stalk you. That’s a huge difference.

Now. If SD should decide to implement such a mechanic, they have to make sure that if you forgo the quick reload sequence (too many enemies close or whatever) you would end up the same as someone who doesn’t care about quick reloading. But if you should decide to use it, the drawbacks are serious. Weapon jamming, lost shells/bullets/rockets and time. If you do succeed, you keep your left-over ammo and gain maybe a quarter of a second on reload and finally your weapon shouldn’t jam (unless there is a weapon jamming possibility in the game. If not, then there’s no jam possible.)

Now you might wonder why I think the penalties should be so dire. First of all, most people I play with think this idea is silly on the subject of a game like Brink. You play humans vs humans not bots, and quick thinking, trigger twitching is the name of the game. You already have a lot to think about playing your class, shooting enemies, maneuvering around the terrain to reach your objective alive and I don’t think adding a mechanic that is giving a tiny benefit has its place. Sure, some people loves micro-managing but most don’t. It’s a hassle that add to your already full list of things to accomplish.

Last point. If SD does implement it, I would like them to have it enabled or disabled in the configuration. I do not want to be penalized because I double hit R. Let those who really want to use it turn it on and suffer for it. :wink:

(tokamak) #122

It’s a valid point man. The option just being there can be distracting.

Still, Brink doesn’t seem to be the right kind of game for people who just want to Pew Pew Shoot people in the face. There must be other things you’re getting out of this game otherwise you wouldn’t be interested in it.

[QUOTE=Ragoo;234089]Imo the ideas themselves are not completely wrong.
I wouldn’t mind active reloading as long as it is just a perk, so that it is completely optional and you give away a perk slot for your fast reloading skills.
The wasting ammo idea could also be part of the weapon customization. I imagine something like a an upgraded magazine that has like 100% more bullets but the disadvantage is that you lose all the bullets left in the clip if you reload ;)[/QUOTE]

Great stuff, it could be the main disadvantage to high-capacity magazines. In Raven Shield everyone automatically selects high-capacity magazines (twice the clip size) and take the minor disadvantages (slightly less accuracy) for granted.

As for active reloading being a perk, I’m not sure if that’s worth it. Compared to other perks it would need to be just simple ‘fast reloading’ in order to compete.

Then again, maybe if you have both you can truly kick ass if you specialise it. Faster reloading makes active reloading harder but you hardly experience any down-time if it works. I like it.

(INF3RN0) #123

[QUOTE=tokamak;234127]It’s a valid point man. The option just being there can be distracting.

Still, Brink doesn’t seem to be the right kind of game for people who just want to Pew Pew Shoot people in the face. There must be other things you’re getting out of this game otherwise you wouldn’t be interested in it…[/QUOTE]

Objectives give the shooting meaning and focus. Classes give the game a tactical substance. But in the end I am gonna have to blow off some heads to complete my mission :). Unfortunately though, the real good stuff doesn’t show up until your in one of those super rare organized pub matches or a competitive game. I still like keeping the feel of the game on an individual level meet that of the classic aim and click shoot fest, with lotsa wsadc action :slight_smile: (space bar=yuck).

(tokamak) #124

Agreed, but Brink also comes with lots of detailed stuff, weapon buffs, upgrades, all kind of little mechanics which make the game anything but a pure shooter. Are you fine with those or are they just a compromise you’re willing to make?

(Ragoo) #125

It would obviously only be worth it if it gave some huge boost to reloading time and you have a big, big gun that takes very long to reload.

(INF3RN0) #126

I have expressed my feelings on those many times. Considering we know very little about how they will influence the game play, I cannot be sure of what to expect. For the most part though, they don’t pose a big distraction for the shooting portion individually… so yea. I like that the game is not won in a tdm mode and that there is variety, but I do want it to play the same way regarding the shooting style. There is a difference there.

(tokamak) #127

Exactly, so I don’t think it would be worth a ability slot.

Maybe that’s a nice philosophy anyway, if it ain’t worth a slot, it has too small a niche for the game.

(MadJack) #128

@tokamak, I have to ask. If you don’t really believe in that feature why do you continue to be its devil’s advocate?

It’s not quite making sense to me. You’ve seen the results, so why? I’m just curious.

(engiebenjy) #129

I think to create a debate (which he has) so thats good for the forums :wink:

(tokamak) #130

I’m glad you asked because I don’t think people quite understood my intention. All I really wanted was to discuss the implications of some reload features. I haven’t made my mind up about this, but I am leaning on implementing them, or at least looking at them. But bar a few exceptions the feedback is mainly knee-jerk reactions.

So how about this: I think we can all accept and appreciate that the reload won’t be changed in Brink. Can we now discuss the alternatives?

(LyndonL) #131

LoL at the arrogance… Dude, you DO realise you’re a player of SD games, NOT a developer?

“I’m leaning on implementing them” … give me a break! You do realise that at this point in the game’s dev cycle, they’re really not going to be considering changing gameplay dynamics?

(SockDog) #132

What you’ve failed to do in this topic is sell the concept. Knee-jerk or not the onus is on you to prove it is a worthy addition.

(Nail) #133

tok, not one person on the forums agrees with your “concept”, every one disagrees, yet you still push your “idea” as usefull. It isn’t, it’s just a bad idea

btw, I haven’t seen any knee-jerk reactions but yours

(tokamak) #134

[QUOTE=LyndonL;234190]LoL at the arrogance… Dude, you DO realise you’re a player of SD games, NOT a developer?

“I’m leaning on implementing them” … give me a break! You do realise that at this point in the game’s dev cycle, they’re really not going to be considering changing gameplay dynamics?[/QUOTE]

Yes I do realise both. I’m not a developer obviously and I do realise that reloading won’t be changed in this game, especially not so late in it’s development phase, I don’t think I ever said anything to the contrary.

[QUOTE=Nail;234198]tok, not one person on the forums agrees with your “concept”, every one disagrees, yet you still push your “idea” as usefull. It isn’t, it’s just a bad idea
[/QUOTE]

I think it’s a shame that people only say ‘nah I don’t want’, they don’t even need to say that because it won’t happen anyway. All I would like to hear are some proper arguments against it.

(Ragoo) #135

lol the tokamak bashing is getting ridiculous…

(tokamak) #136

It’s fine, I think people severely misunderstand what I tried to accomplish in this thread.

(Qhullu) #137

i don’t really have any arguments against them, but here’s some less than apparent features that emerge from the reload system in w:et:

since you can be killed in less time than it takes to reload your mg, and while reloading, nothing is screwing with your opponents aim (getting hit makes your screen shake). you don’t really reload mid-fight but switch to colt/luger and reload that if you’re still alive after a clip. the reload in colt/luger is very short.

if you do start reloading mid-fight because you have the option to get behind a wall or something, and since your opponent knows exactly how long a reload takes, they have precise information on which to base their next decision on, whether to chase you or let you reload in peace. the same information is given to you if you hear someone reloading behind a corner.

so let’s say a fight has left you with 5 hp (one bullet will kill you), and your opponent has run out of bullets but instead of switching to a handgun decided to back away behind a corner and reload instead (perhaps he saw your reinforcements closing in behind you or something, and didn’t know exactly how little health you have left). if your clip isn’t empty you can safely round the corner because you know they can’t do any damage to you as long as the reload last. of course this “feature” is lost in games where you can interrupt a reload.

as for losing the bullets left in the clip; reload is there mainly to force a pause when using a powerful weapon, and in long enough fights between two teams, it inserts a kind of rhythm into it. of course not everyone reloads only if their clip is empty but based on circumstances, no one to shoot at for the moment for example. so punishing people for being good at choosing a good time to reload is just as valid a way to look at it as punishing people who like to reload after shooting a few bullets if they can (why they need to be punished i have no idea). since the ammunition is always scarce in w:et, it may change the rhythm of a firefight from organic towards mechanical.

TL;DR - an active reload system introduces an element of randomness (when considered from the point of view of the person who is not reloading), and losing the bullets left in the clip can kind of force you to act in a certain way in certain situations (as in “i cannot reload now even though the situation calls for it”). which are by no means arguments against either, just things that affect the dynamics of the game, whether you like these changes or not depends on what you like.

(nemezote) #138

What everyone else said…

It amazes me that you didnt think of it before writing, almost as if you dont read what you write…

Games are supposed to be fun.

(light_sh4v0r) #139

Qhullu is raising a good point here. Reloading should be punishing.

(tokamak) #140

Think of what?

an active reload system introduces an element of randomness (when considered from the point of view of the person who is not reloading), and losing the bullets left in the clip can kind of force you to act in a certain way in certain situations (as in “i cannot reload now even though the situation calls for it”). which are by no means arguments against either, just things that affect the dynamics of the game, whether you like these changes or not depends on what you like.

You certainly got that right. I like these implications, players becoming less predictable as well as more weight on deciding when to reload. There’s enough games already that do the simple shooter thing. Brink is not a simple shooter, the past ET’s have already shown that added complexity can make for tremendous amount of fun. I don’t agree with the idea that ‘more complexity = bad’ at all.

It is punishing no matter how you look at it.

If you chose not to go for the active reload, you take the normal period of time. Which is the average punishment as well as making you predictable to the enemy.

If you chose to go for the active reload, you pay in concentration. If you focus on getting the reload right you’re focusing less on the enemy. Here you need to weigh in how much effort you can put into it depending on the situation. Too much concentration and you fail to see the guy shooting at you, too little concentration and you mess up, incapacitation you longer rendering you vulnerable. It’s only when you weigh in these options right you spend the right amount of effort on the active-reload you gain an advantage here.