The impact of class structure of team on the gameplay, battlefield and the enemy team

(Falcon.PL) #1

What in your opinion shall it be?

We’ve seen in the past SD games some of that, but to little extend. Example of amount of medics in team and HP on spawn, will suffice. There were buffs in the Brink, also good example yet in somewhat different fashion(active versus passive, as one had to give the buff while passive approach does that for you automatically and globally).

The thing is to balance - Brink approach needed too much care, while the previous games had not enough(?) of the structural impact. How would you improve on that?

PS: Have a good day!

(Mustang) #2

So you’re asking for opinions on active and passive buffs and how it effects class synergy?

In general I like the idea, it adds depth to gameplay and introduces new strats. Although I think it needs to not be over-complicated and should be obvious what is happening.

For example, if one guy has a fire-proof vest buff that negates fire damage and a helmet buff that reduces headshot damage by 10%, but the guy shooting him has a flamethrower with a 10% extra damage buff with a penalty of slower movement and is standing next to a guy with a water damage aura so he now shoots a grit filled water-fountain instead of fire, both of which in combination counter the opponents stacked buffs… too complicated.

But if it’s something simple like, here’s a list of 20 things and you can pick 3 to take into battle and it’s simple stuff like an extra grenade, or red-dot sight, or silent footsteps, or faster teammate healing, etc. then I think it adds something good and is something I’d like to see.

(Falcon.PL) #3

In general I like the idea, it adds depth to gameplay and introduces new strats. Although I think it needs to not be over-complicated and should be obvious what is happening.

Simple to learn, yet hard to master. Generally whole good game interface - in wide meaning - shall be simple but have potential, let a player become better and better in using it in right ways, right times, and align all the pieces to form his/her own unique style. Maybe I rushed a bit with the “unique style”, because some good practices will repeat, the thing is - good design of game would allow them not to be a panaceum for everything.

Story - I was once playing a RealTimeStrategy game and it was fun until I’ve found out there is a single always-working victory pattern to follow mindlessly. Camp yourself with defences heavily, then make alot of cannons and rush the enemy out of the map. Finish. It worked for me on the highest difficulty level even. Maybe it is due to being used to the game so much nothing needs rethinking - so much the worse. I’d like the tactical dimension of the DB to require some cleverness and never ever allow the same tactical pattern to defeat everything no matter what.

Complication - easy to grow it when adding more and more complexity to the base(the game, not interface - let that mean that for a while), yet there are ways to provide effects that are due to standard-routine choices. Just like class-choice. User has only to chose his class. New player will have no problem with the additional feature, yet as he will get experienced, he will choose his class also regarding the effects of the structure.

As this comes simple, yet gives some new possibilities to shape the team consciously, not only in terms of we got that many medics, this many engs… but some buffs or even changes to the game-ground - the battlefield(like for example more field-ops = better communication(faster information about side objective status, maybe main even. You name it). What could it influence, is a good deal of a question. What do you think?

(potty200) #4

Been waiting for another topic for a couple of days!