UI/HUD: Alternate class feedback

(Anti) #21

More a technical issue I believe. Depending on the number of class variants and outfits we might have (still under discussion), with 16 players each having the five classes available to them they’re likely to need to keep all of these in memory at the same time (bad!), or suffer from them taking a long time to stream in (meaning the player might have entirely the wrong appearance).

There are things we can try to do to manage this, but right now it’s a risk we have to be aware of, character ‘decks’ are good way to solve this.

What we’re really keen to do is ensure all variants within a class can fill the same role on a team and have a similar play style, both in terms of optimal combat ranges/locations and ability usage. For example the Assault is all about breaking through the front-line and initiating fights at bottlenecks, the Engineer focuses on taking and holding positions as well as doing objectives.

The variance between them is just a type of side-grade that gives you different ways to fill that role, but the overall feel should be quite similar. With all of your feedback on the characters we feel we can do this well enough to ensure a fixed 5-man roster going into a match doesn’t ever leave you feeling like you’re totally restricted.

There may well be sections of maps where a character is not the most effective he could be, but all players will face this issue equally over the course of a game. You could either build your ‘deck’ to try and account for this, or you can learn methods to be as effective as possible in these tougher circumstances.

At least that’s the intention, these things are always subject to change based on feedback and how it ends up playing :slight_smile:

(DarkangelUK) #22

If it’s down to technical issues then sure, why not, but going into a game knowing that at some point I’m going to be weak for the class I desire and there’s nothing I can do about it except ‘do my best’ then it won’t be fun for me personally. We’re back to the possibility of needing a specific class, but users are not wanting to switch to the required class because they don’t have an optimal build for it, they don’t want to be at a disadvantage so they’d rather keep with their strong suit than venture to the realms of comfortableness. We saw it with Brink and I can understand the reason for it… there’s nothing worse than being mowed down due to the dice rolling the wrong way for you because your blind choice was the wrong one.

(tokamak) #23

Can’t it be optional? Default skins for people with low memory and preloaded alternative skins for those with more performance?

(murka) #24

I don’t really see how for ex engi2 will be weak compared to some other loadouts. Sure some tools can specialize, but the core is there.

(Anti) #25

You wouldn’t be weak, you will always be able to compete, it just might be the case that you are not at your absolute optimal in this case. I’m talking about the sort of difference you get as a shotgun using player where you’d be good in a room or corridor, but less effective in an open car park. The maps should always provide spaces that suit your style, but these may be briefly limited in scope in some points in a map.

I don’t think players are unfamiliar with having to deal with weaknesses to their class in a class based game, players adapt and cope well in games like TF2 and in the MOBAs, they realise the penalty in X is offset by effectiveness at Y.

(stealth6) #26

I think the single class loadout would work for me.
I’d just agree with a friend that he takes the counter for my class and vice versa, then we can just swap classes when we are getting hammered.
Obviously doesn’t really work for a pub game when you are playing alone, but then I’d just go to my comfort class (probably medic) and then just screw the objective and have some fun for the rest of the map. (it’s only a pub anyway)

(Ashog) #27

I am against this system, but I think as shirosae mentioned, it has smth to do with F2P model, probably unlocks and character progression, but who knows…

What happens if let’s say all of the team’s players by some magical interference preselect their engineer class as engineer1? This would mean that, whatever the class layout in the team, there will never be a single turret during the whole map for this team. Even if the team decides to go for the turrets at some point. Not sure how that helps the tactical side of the game. Or did I misunderstand the issue?

(Anti) #28

[QUOTE=Ashog;411238]I am against this system, but I think as shirosae mentioned, it has smth to do with F2P model, probably unlocks and character progression, but who knows…

What happens if let’s say all of the team’s players by some magical interference preselect their engineer class as engineer1? This would mean that, whatever the class layout in the team, there will never be a single turret during the whole map for this team. Even if the team decides to go for the turrets at some point. Not sure how that helps the tactical side of the game. Or did I misunderstand the issue?[/QUOTE]

Well, I’d hope we could balance the game so that mines are as valuable as a turret for one. That said, if all of these guys chose the Engineer with the mine I’d like to hope that’s because they all like that character and find them effective to use, if we achieve good balance between characters as we want then I’d expect to see good variance in the characters being selected. Should the turret being present become critical to a team’s success then something is obviously wrong.

If all eight guys on a team are picking the same character game in game out, we probably have balance issues that need addressing :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #29

Oh noes! Variety!

Games completely without turrets will be refreshing, just as refreshing as games completely littered with turrets.

Another great thing is that it makes games less chaotic. The first encounter is essential and good players will start inventorising their opponents. As a game goes on the chance of meeting certain type of class specialisations becomes lower and you can base your strategy on this. If people can have anything at any time then this type of deduction can’t happen and players will constantly have to be aware of anything. This means more general, all rounder that need to account for everything will always be prevalent and that would be a shame.

(H0RSE) #30

You are referring to something other than I what I was commenting on… I am commenting on exactly what zenstar said:

If your idea of fun is living with your decisions then you can stick to assigning only 1 loadout per class and working it.

Only 1 loadout per class - this is what I was commenting on. This is what RTCW, W:ET and QW had. The word “multiple” never even appeared in his quote, so I don’t know why you even bring it up.

(tokamak) #31

Well not entirely. You had three xp trees: class, battlesense, and light weapons the way the upgrades got distributed through that differed per player. Then there’s also the option of having different weapons for each class at any time. DB has none of this, but at the same time, DB will, (I hope) have more possible (permanent) options.

(H0RSE) #32

But it didn’t really change loadouts. It’s not like I hit a certain amount of xp, and suddenly I have a rocket launcher and riot shied available. and you could also play servers that either disabled this completely on maxed it out by default.

Then there’s also the option of having different weapons for each class at any time. DB has none of this, but at the same time, DB will, (I hope) have more possible (permanent) options.

Don’t know what game you were playing, but when I played medic, I only got the option of one weapon - thompson on allies, mp40 on axis.

Besides, none of of what you described applies to RTCW.

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;411221]If it’s down to technical issues then sure, why not, but going into a game knowing that at some point I’m going to be weak for the class I desire and there’s nothing I can do about it except ‘do my best’ then it won’t be fun for me personally.
[/quote]
first off, it isn’t really about you personally- it’s about the players in general and what mechanic would work best for everyone. Second, the system you so strongly oppose, works in other games, specifically RPG’s and MOBA’s - both feature competitive, skill-based play.

We’re back to the possibility of needing a specific class, but users are not wanting to switch to the required class because they don’t have an optimal build for it, they don’t want to be at a disadvantage so they’d rather keep with their strong suit than venture to the realms of comfortableness.

This is simply taking your way of thinking and applying it to everyone. Not everyone plays for optimal builds and efficiency. What do you mean by “realm of comfortableness?” Because I take it as, "players sticking with classes they are accustomed to and/or enjoy playing. If this is the case, then there are tons of players that do this, regardless if the class they choose is “optimal” or not. Your way of thinking (at least to me) borders on the competitive player mindset, which I’d say, most of the playerbase is not.

I tend to play Medic because it is my best class and I have the most fun with it. If I was playing and we needed an Engineer, I’m not going to rip my hair out because I am unable to change to the needed class, and I’d wager neither are many other players either. It is what it is - a video game. Just play and have fun. Why get so bent out of shape? If it came down to my teammates simply not choosing the classes needed, then I would attempt to mix up my classes after every match, have a team shuffle, or change servers. If I was playing with friends, well, we would have a balanced mix and it wouldn’t even be a problem.

We saw it with Brink and I can understand the reason for it… there’s nothing worse than being mowed down due to the dice rolling the wrong way for you because your blind choice was the wrong one.

What “blind choice?” Are players randomly assigned classes? The choice is a conscious one. And who’s to say that later down the development line, the game isn’t setup so that you can see what classes the other team is choosing before the game launches (like in SMNC) giving you everything you need to avoid the blind choice.

There are pros and cons to both methods. I just really dislike how you (and others) tend to take things so personal, and act as though your way is the only way.

(tokamak) #33

[QUOTE=H0RSE;411253]Don’t know what game you were playing, but when I played medic, I only got the option of one weapon - thompson on allies, mp40 on axis.

Besides, none of of what you described applies to RTCW.[/QUOTE]

Apart from field ops and medic the rest of the classes had multiple weapon options. SD didn’t make RTCW.

(shirosae) #34

That’s a shame, but I can see why you’d go this route. The game has been really quick to load for me, and with the server browser being ‘outside’ the game you really need fast in/out.

(SockDog) #35

[QUOTE=Anti;411244]Well, I’d hope we could balance the game so that mines are as valuable as a turret for one. That said, if all of these guys chose the Engineer with the mine I’d like to hope that’s because they all like that character and find them effective to use, if we achieve good balance between characters as we want then I’d expect to see good variance in the characters being selected. Should the turret being present become critical to a team’s success then something is obviously wrong.

If all eight guys on a team are picking the same character game in game out, we probably have balance issues that need addressing :)[/QUOTE]

I think balancing is the issue for me. You’re shaving the edges off the game to fit with this mechanic. Instead of selecting the right tool for the job you’re making any tool suitable. Weapons and abilities therefore become less specific, less unique, because they all need to be equally good (there or there abouts) otherwise you end up in more situations where you just don’t fit at all.

I guess I’m saying that if you feel that 16 random selections of character builds isn’t going to cause any terrible gameplay issues then what value do those builds have? I can just randomly click around my equipment and join a game in the knowledge that anything I have selected will be balanced to everyone else. No real time tactical decisions and I imagine a HUGE task to balance out each and every item introduced to the work.

(tokamak) #36

You’re not making any tool suitable, you’re just creating different jobs that are capable of reaching the same goal which usually involves getting the engineer to stick his pliers in the right object long enough to make it work.

(H0RSE) #37

I’m aware they didn’t make RTCW. The point is that RTCW was the basis for W:ET (it was the planned expansion for the game) and it featured fixed classes. The point is that a fixed class system can work - well.

(SockDog) #38

Yes, and in so doing not only are you conceding that the choice you’ve made is pointless because there will always be a hole the shape of your block. But you’re also requiring SD to make maps with every conceivable hole. At least on the SD forums you was happy with people making a bad choice and having to live with it, now you’re happy that the choice has no great impact on the game.

(tokamak) #39

Yeah and in that I fully agree. We’re disagreeing on something trivial.

(H0RSE) #40

[QUOTE=Ashog;411238]I am against this system, but I think as shirosae mentioned, it has smth to do with F2P model, probably unlocks and character progression, but who knows…

What happens if let’s say all of the team’s players by some magical interference preselect their engineer class as engineer1? This would mean that, whatever the class layout in the team, there will never be a single turret during the whole map for this team. Even if the team decides to go for the turrets at some point. Not sure how that helps the tactical side of the game. Or did I misunderstand the issue?[/QUOTE]
Well, for your example to work, it would mean that turrets are a fundamental “needed” ability. There may be scenarios where they may be helpful, but a team of engineers never planting a single turret, is hardy useless. Again, loadouts aren’t the main issue here - it’s player skill. You could have the most balanced team imaginable, and still get steamrolled due to simply being out played, and this is where I think some people have an issue - if this were ever to occur, some people would want the options to try any and every means necessary to not be in that situation. Unfortunately, sometimes it is simply unavoidable, fixed classes or not.

The fixed class system works
The changeable class system works

It all comes down to what type of gameplay SD is going for.