The deep seeded contradictions in Dirty Bombs design...

(PixelTwitch) #1

Over the last couple of months I have played more of this game then likely anyone else on these forums or in the closed beta altogether… I have “tried” to give my feedback (or you could call it banging my head against a brick wall) and also learn as much as I can from the game. However, the responses I receive and information I find always come back to the same issues and contain the same contradictions… So I thought I would share them.

THE GOOD OLD MERC CONCEPT
Be it due to SD wanting to cash in on the way that LoL has made its money selling Skins and Champions or simply trying to advance the FPS genera, there is no denying that the whole Merc concept is a huge contradiction to the rest of the design choices and mechanics in Dirty Bomb…

Mechanics like allowing switching of Mercs during a round, Weapon customisation, Each class still able to do all objectives and generic abilities really does just relegate the Merc concept to nothing more than a highly limited loadout system… Albeit one that will require you most likely to pay for the “loadout container/Merc” you choose to use.

Infact its very hard to see how Mercs are any different to classes when the variation in HP and Speed are so small… Actually a simple 3 perk system (like in Battlefield and Call of Duty) would give you the whole range of diversity (if not even more). The way that Objective stuff is handled with Mercs is actually almost identical to how Battlefield (and ET) handles classes already…

Nosgoth is actually a great example of how this could have worked. Nosgoth allows you to choose a “hero” and then choose his abilities and passives… Actually I would go as far as saying that the current Merc system is one customisable ability slot from obsolete.

Apart from the pretty character designs… This is the exact same loadout/class system as Tribes Ascend… It also contains no resemblance and none of the advantages of its Moba based inspiration… I cannot help but feel the the system would have been cooler if you could simply create loadouts/classes like you could in BRINK.

I am tired I will continue to add more things I feel contradict each other tomorrow.

(Glottis-3D) #2

  1. Give us back Class-dependant Objects. So that engies DO matter is disarm and build (any build primary objects maybe at last??). AND coverts matter in Hacking.

  2. Get rid of twin-mercs. Like Thunder and Fragger, like Stoker and Skyhammer, Like Proxy and tha Black guy.
    2.5 give a player a chance to choose weapons and abilities, since now you have 1 mercs out of two - with 2 weapons and 2 abilities.

  3. Give everybody 3rd weapon so that engies will have SMG and SHotgun

  4. Start being strict with yourselfs. Dont pussy-around with bad ideas. Get rid of those without hesitation.

(Erkin31) #3

The advantages of the merc system is that it’s more easy to balance the game.
For the objectives, I still think that a role system could be better : http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/37219-Classless-objectives-Role-system

(tangoliber) #4

I hate loadouts and love the character system. I think I was arguing in support of this system before the game was announced.

  1. Loadouts often prevent the developer from making weapons and abilities truly satisfying to use, because every weapon has to be balanced against every other weapon, and every ability has to be balanced against every other ability. But with the character system, you can include a very powerful ability, as long as it is paired with a weak weapon, or vice versa.
    You can also solve this issue with something like Black Op’s Pick 10… but that doesn’t solve the following issue.

  2. Although I am not one myself, competitive players like to be able to see a character and know exactly what weapons and abilities they have at their disposal. One of the key principles of competitive design is to telegraph as much as possible…so that actions can be countered (for example, having to switch to a knife before using it forces a player to telegraph that attack.).

  3. Loadouts can decrease variety in gameplay. Players will generally gravitiate towards one gun, and there will usually be a couple of abilities that are considered “the best”. In Brink, it was boring when everyone was running around with Carbs. But I played in games where each team was required to have one Heavy with chain gun, one engineer with shotgun, one Covert Op with Sniper Rifle and Hack Turret ability, etc… And it was really fun. Having characters with set loadouts should increase the variety of weapons and abilities happening in any match.

4)From a F2P business model standpoint, I think it is much more fun for a player to purchase a complete package…a skin, weapons and abilities…all designed to work together, rather than purchasing a hat or a pistol. It feels more like an expansion than a micro-transaction.

(RasteRayzeR) #5

[QUOTE=krokodealer;498320]
2.5 give a player a chance to choose weapons and abilities, since now you have 1 mercs out of two - with 2 weapons and 2 abilities.
3. Give everybody 3rd weapon so that engies will have SMG and SHotgun[/QUOTE]

2.5) It will happen, it’s just not implemented yet. All the smg and shotty will have the same damage output and you will be able to choose your weapons for your mercs. Patience.

  1. Also planned if I remember correctly. Mostly because abilities won’t be the main weapon anymore. Mercs like sparks for example will have the reviver as ability and earn a real main gun + secondary.
(Snotling) #6

I like the comparison between DB mercs and LoL champions. I think SD should go in that direction building its characters with a set of main roles soldier/engineer/covie/field ops/medic as LoL does with its tank/support/fighter/assassin/mage. This way the mercs thing is more interesting and each of them can really be unique with its storyline and niche role, not just a “loadout container” as Pixel says. Nevertheless, you shouldn’t be limited to one merc per game as LoL does, this wouldn’t make any sense in a FPS… :slight_smile:

(Protekt1) #7

I’ve played a lot of nosgoth, but this game does it better. Just way better. I like Nosgoth too. I am also a have of legacy of kain franchise in general.

Also Nosgoth follows the character over class design the same way DB/XT does, just in this game the characters have names instead of just generic vampire clan names.

There are a couple things XT does better:

XT forces you to commit to a particular build. The benefits are numerous. It is easier to balance and it forces you to think about how you are approaching a map.

Nosgoth has a high potential to become about using the best loadouts. Pick 2 leaping dude, 1 with smoke, 1 with acid, 1 tyrant, and 1 other. Not working? Immediately switch to hard counter the opponent’s builds you are facing. Nosgoth actually needs this because of the next point.

Nosgoth is a game about hard counters. The game definitely has skill to an extent. More emphasis on the humans in terms of aiming and more emphasis on the vampires in terms of attacking at the same time with the right abilities. But the game is just loaded with hard counters really. Also a bit AOE spam heavy tbh.

I have no idea what you mean by having 1 more customization slot then being obsolete. I think it is great that it locks you into a build. Customization is overdone in the last 8 or so years anyway.

(Ashog) #8

[QUOTE=tangoliber;498495]I hate loadouts and love the character system. I think I was arguing in support of this system before the game was announced.

  1. Loadouts often prevent the developer from making weapons and abilities truly satisfying to use, because every weapon has to be balanced against every other weapon, and every ability has to be balanced against every other ability. But with the character system, you can include a very powerful ability, as long as it is paired with a weak weapon, or vice versa.
    You can also solve this issue with something like Black Op’s Pick 10… but that doesn’t solve the following issue.

  2. Although I am not one myself, competitive players like to be able to see a character and know exactly what weapons and abilities they have at their disposal. One of the key principles of competitive design is to telegraph as much as possible…so that actions can be countered (for example, having to switch to a knife before using it forces a player to telegraph that attack.).

  3. Loadouts can decrease variety in gameplay. Players will generally gravitiate towards one gun, and there will usually be a couple of abilities that are considered “the best”. In Brink, it was boring when everyone was running around with Carbs. But I played in games where each team was required to have one Heavy with chain gun, one engineer with shotgun, one Covert Op with Sniper Rifle and Hack Turret ability, etc… And it was really fun. Having characters with set loadouts should increase the variety of weapons and abilities happening in any match.

4)From a F2P business model standpoint, I think it is much more fun for a player to purchase a complete package…a skin, weapons and abilities…all designed to work together, rather than purchasing a hat or a pistol. It feels more like an expansion than a micro-transaction.[/QUOTE]

I actually liked PixelTwitch’s idea (or possibly someone else’s earlier idea) to have certain pools of weapons for certain characters. In a way it is not new - in both ET and ETQW, as well as RTCW a soldier had a pool of weapons to choose from, e.g. RL, MG, mortar, SMG, flamethrower, assault gun, shotgun.
The same for fieldops or covertops or engineer.
If we could have, let’s say for certain characters such a pool of main, secondary and explosive weapons, that would perhaps facilitate the use of different characters due to thier unique abilities, rather than stimulated use of only selected characters due to their superior weapons (superior in a way of how handling or spread are liked). The only thing is that the pool characters must be selected carefully by devs, to not completely destroy the character’s uniqueness. Lets say, have a pool of proxy, fletcher and aura with a selection of shotguns; sawbones, phoenix and bushwhacker with SMGs, thunder, fragger and rhino with MGs; arty, skyhammer, stoker and kira with ARs, aimee, vassili and red eye with sniper rifles. Some certain characters would of course be not poolable such as sparks, phantom and nader.

Oh and I hope that weapon customization, except perhaps scopes, wouldn’t be in the game as it would be a repeat of Brink’s mistakes - make weapons/characters too unpredictable, but often also non-unique, at the same time serving for inequalities in-game, inevitably echoing with a pay2win situation.

(Mustang) #9

[QUOTE=Ashog;498603]I actually liked PixelTwitch’s idea (or possibly someone else’s earlier idea) to have certain pools of weapons for certain characters. In a way it is not new - in both ET and ETQW, as well as RTCW a soldier had a pool of weapons to choose from, e.g. RL, MG, mortar, SMG, flamethrower, assault gun, shotgun.
The same for fieldops or covertops or engineer.
If we could have, let’s say for certain characters such a pool of main, secondary and explosive weapons, that would perhaps facilitate the use of different characters due to thier unique abilities, rather than stimulated use of only selected characters due to their superior weapons (superior in a way of how handling or spread are liked). The only thing is that the pool characters must be selected carefully by devs, to not completely destroy the character’s uniqueness. Lets say, have a pool of proxy, fletcher and aura with a selection of shotguns; sawbones, phoenix and bushwhacker with SMGs, thunder, fragger and rhino with MGs; arty, skyhammer, stoker and kira with ARs, aimee, vassili and red eye with sniper rifles. Some certain characters would of course be not poolable such as sparks, phantom and nader.[/QUOTE]
This was already the plan since forever.

(RasteRayzeR) #10

[QUOTE=Ashog;498603]I actually liked PixelTwitch’s idea (or possibly someone else’s earlier idea) to have certain pools of weapons for certain characters. In a way it is not new - in both ET and ETQW, as well as RTCW a soldier had a pool of weapons to choose from, e.g. RL, MG, mortar, SMG, flamethrower, assault gun, shotgun.
[/QUOTE]

Smooth said something about this already. I think it was the plan all along

(Bangtastic) #11

nooooo no vip infos anymore ((((((