UI/HUD: Alternate class feedback

[DarkangelUK]

[QUOTE=H0RSE;411248]You are referring to something other than I what I was commenting on… I am commenting on exactly what zenstar said:

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.[/QUOTE]
I know exactly what you were commenting on.

RTCW, W:ET, and QW all had one loadout per class, (except for the soldier.) Having one loadout per class is probably the most used mechanic in these types of games

I agreed, though no idea why you brought it up but them having 1 loadout has no baring on DB having the option to create multiple but only ever have access to 1 per session. “I don’t like the idea of creating multiple loadouts but only ever being able to access one per match” “RtCW, W:ET, QW did this” - no baring on DB.

[QUOTE=H0RSE;411248]You are referring to something other than I what I was commenting on… I am commenting on exactly what zenstar said:

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.[/QUOTE]
I brought it up with regards to DB, you’re the one that mentioned the other games so I explained that it wasn’t an issue with those games and why it wasn’t an issue.

[QUOTE=H0RSE;411253]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.

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]
Dude, you’re the one that brought up the other games! You caused your own skewed tangent here.

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.

My input was about my opinion, so yes it is about me. My input could reflect quite a lot of others players feelings, so this also lends towards what would work best for everyone. Just because it works in other games, doesn’t convince me it works in this… especially when you use RPG’s as an example.

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.

This is back to my experience with Brink on PC, unlocks and skills were spent on a class that suited the player, the idea of switching to a class that had 0 unlocks or ‘perks’ made them think twice about changing for the sake of the team. Game after game I was jumping class to accommodate the objective because others didn’t want to leave their comfort zone. Did I mind switching? No, but I disliked the reason I had to. Contrary to popular belief, I’m not pulling stuff out my arse.

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.

I like the irony of the ‘bent out of shape’ comment. All I can really say is… yeah cool… but it’s not about you, it’s about what mechanic would work best for everyone (see what I did there?). You think everyone will be hunkydory and the issue will be minimal, I think it’ll cause more problems than it’s worth… welcome to a debate with 2 sides.

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’s several threads that span for about 10 to 15 pages that have went over why your choice could be construed as blind, yes this can be appeased by seeing the other teams class selection and their loadout with those classes, I doubt that’s gonna happen though.

The example again is the chapel, I believe the best loadout for here is shotgun for the instant 1HK since its very close quarters. I join a server as SMG totting med since that’s my specialty then find out everyone is an SMG totting med. The enemy have a good mix of SMG and SG players and it turns out we’re getting our asses handed to us. I can adjust tactics and try my best, but for me I know my best counter is the SG… by design I can’t go with my best gut feeling for counter.

Unless you know the other teams class/loadout set up though, then you’re playing a guessing game. Anti has agreed that, for what he sees is a minute portion of the time, you could be in a situation where you’re setup is weak at that moment… says it all really. I believe half the mental challenge is knowing when you’re not your best and making the right choice to switch it up and adapt. Yes others can view the mental challenge as using what you have at your disposal and adapting… I don’t like that and others won’t either (no, I know not all will agree with me but some will… like it needs spelled out).

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.

Of course I’m going suggest that the way I believe is the best is the only way to go, why would I suggest that what I class is a bad way to go is also a reasonable option?

[tokamak]

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.

The peg-hole system is too convenient, you’re making it seem as if it’s a binary question, it either fits or it doesn’t. If it fits you win and if it doesn’t you lose. Using this analogy also implies that there’s only one peg for each hole. Classes don’t work like that, they have bell curves, windows of opportunity in which their assets go from worthless to ideal to worthless again and a whole range of gradients in between.

Then you’re saying that, if it’s not binary, it’s inconsequential. The underlying argument is that there’s no point in playing rock paper scissors if paper has a way of occasionally beating scissors. And yet, in games like these paper does sometimes beat scissors, it only means that paper is going to have a really hard time doing so and that it will require a lot of skill/time/effort and resources to do so. It means that paper constantly has to weigh taking hard challenges in which it isn’t kitted out or avoid them and finds some rocks to beat.

Then, in your final point is that SD has to make a game where all these roles can be in some way at some moment be fulfilled. As if that’s a bad thing! Making those roles and trying to get them work, that, that’s where gameplay is created.

[DarkangelUK]

[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]

Oh noes! Variety!

The exact system you propose curbs variety…

Ashog; that’s my problem, the answer to this seems to be ‘deal with it’. Even though the best counter could be you’re own turrets, some bad luck has meant that you can’t implement that counter because of the wrong choice… dice roll.

[amazinglarry]

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.

Just to comment on this, the main reason I don’t use Engy 1 is because I’m terrible using shotguns. Landmines are just as valuable as turrets (in my mind), but maybe that’s because I seem to run over every single one that’s laid out.

As far as the class loadouts are concerned, for me at least, my choices are always based on how comfortable I am with the primary weapon. There are times I definitely long for landmines over turrets, but in exchange for my lovable huggable smg… no dice.

[tokamak]

The exact system you propose curbs variety…

Limting the amount you can take does not decrease the range of options you can pick from. Variety isn’t just the amount of options, it’s also the effective difference between those options. Increasing the amount of options you can take however, will decrease the effective difference between the options.

Ashog; that’s my problem, the answer to this seems to be ‘deal with it’. Even though the best counter could be you’re own turrets, some bad luck has meant that you can’t implement that counter because of the wrong choice… dice roll.

The answer is indeed ‘deal with it’ that’s the point of the game. Sometimes you’re fighting uphill sometimes you’re fighting downhill.

Having all tools available means that regardless of the situation you’re in, you have an answer, the only challenge is knowing which tool to pick.

Not having all the tools available means that you don’t just have to know what they’re needed for, you’re also required to find situations in which that limited set of tools is most functional and avoid situations in which they’re not. More competent players won’t just avoid or seek the situations, they will start to make the situations in which their tools are more effective.

[SockDog]

[QUOTE=tokamak;411294]The peg-hole system is too convenient, you’re making it seem as if it’s a binary question, it either fits or it doesn’t. If it fits you win and if it doesn’t you lose. Using this analogy also implies that there’s only one peg for each hole. Classes don’t work like that, they have bell curves, windows of opportunity in which their assets go from worthless to ideal to worthless again and a whole range of gradients in between.

Then you’re saying that, if it’s not binary, it’s inconsequential. The underlying argument is that there’s no point in playing rock paper scissors if paper has a way of occasionally beating scissors. And yet, in games like these paper does sometimes beat scissors, it only means that paper is going to have a really hard time doing so and that it will require a lot of skill/time/effort and resources to do so. It means that paper constantly has to weigh taking hard challenges in which it isn’t kitted out or avoid them and finds some rocks to beat.

Then, in your final point is that SD has to make a game where all these roles can be in some way at some moment be fulfilled. As if that’s a bad thing! Making those roles and trying to get them work, that, that’s where gameplay is created.[/QUOTE]

That bell curve is being flattened out and snipped at either end to minimise the situation where your choice results in a spike rather than a curve. If you’re picking a class that is total crap then the game needs balancing better is hardly a solution it’s fitting a game around a mechanic. If I take a boat to a bike ride I don’t expect someone to flood part of the course to make my poor decision better. I also would appreciate it if I had a choice of riding part of the course on a bike and then swapping to a boat rather than the course requiring me to be on a floating bike or have water areas you can wade through. Point is that the game is being limited to fit this in and to what end?

But you’re not making them work, they’re balancing the game to make it work. That means instead of making a choice and making the right one you’re making a blind choice and relying on the game to still let you win. Why even bother playing with classes if the decisions you make either take away your ability to win or have absolutely no bearing on your ability to win.

[tokamak]

You still believe the game is about matching the right tool to the right situation. That’s also how you see the class specialisations. You think the game is about knowing when to use the right class specialisation.

That’s not what the game is about. The game is about having unique play-styles and then knowing how to play them in such a way that their strengths are maximised and their weaknesses covered. Your tool is given, the situations need to be found rather than the other way around.

And yes that does mean that sometimes it’s more challenging that other times. The bell-curve idea means that you can have different standard deviations. You can pick a character with mild highs and lows and you can pick a character with extreme highs and lows, whatever you’re more comfortable with.

[H0RSE]

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;411292]I agreed, though no idea why you brought it up but them having 1 loadout has no baring on DB having the option to create multiple but only ever have access to 1 per session. “I don’t like the idea of creating multiple loadouts but only ever being able to access one per match” “RtCW, W:ET, QW did this” - no baring on DB.

I brought it up with regards to DB, you’re the one that mentioned the other games so I explained that it wasn’t an issue with those games and why it wasn’t an issue.[/QUOTE]
I mentioned the older games, simply to show you that t the system can work, since you to seem think otherwise. Either that, or you are aware that system works, you just don’t like regardless.

My input was about my opinion, so yes it is about me. My input could reflect quite a lot of others players feelings, so this also lends towards what would work best for everyone. Just because it works in other games, doesn’t convince me it works in this… especially when you use RPG’s as an example.

Not all RPG’s rely on dice rolls… I also used MOBA’s as an example - another genre that relys on player skill. I also mentioned older FPS games that do this - do you need more examples?

This is back to my experience with Brink on PC, unlocks and skills were spent on a class that suited the player, the idea of switching to a class that had 0 unlocks or ‘perks’ made them think twice about changing for the sake of the team. Game after game I was jumping class to accommodate the objective because others didn’t want to leave their comfort zone. Did I mind switching? No, but I disliked the reason I had to. Contrary to popular belief, I’m not pulling stuff out my arse.

But we are talking about fixed class loadouts, not unlocking features and skill trees, so where exactly does this Brink example fit in?

I like the irony of the ‘bent out of shape’ comment. All I can really say is… yeah cool… but it’s not about you, it’s about what mechanic would work best for everyone (see what I did there?). You think everyone will be hunkydory and the issue will be minimal, I think it’ll cause more problems than it’s worth… welcome to a debate with 2 sides.

/facepalm…

my comment was to show you another side of the argument…

There’s several threads that span for about 10 to 15 pages that have went over why your choice could be construed as blind, yes this can be appeased by seeing the other teams class selection and their loadout with those classes, I doubt that’s gonna happen though.

The example again is the chapel, I believe the best loadout for here is shotgun for the instant 1HK since its very close quarters. I join a server as SMG totting med since that’s my specialty then find out everyone is an SMG totting med. The enemy have a good mix of SMG and SG players and it turns out we’re getting our asses handed to us. I can adjust tactics and try my best, but for me I know my best counter is the SG… by design I can’t go with my best gut feeling for counter.

The fixed class design (regardless how much you detest it) works. It has been proven not only in other FPS games, but other genres as well. What you propose in your example, brings up an excellent point - if you are a lone wolf player; constantly wanting the ability to change and adapt; to never be at a disadvantage.

A few factors are at play here:

• how much of a disadvantage does this put you in
• can relying on teammates counter it.
• Is the enemy team simply more skilled than you, regardless of your loadout

As I mentioned before, doesn’t the shotgun medic have an SMG or machine pistol as a secondary gun? Does this not offset the lack of having an SMG primary weapon? Do you really contribute the fact that one team has SMG’s and shotguns, oppsed to just having SMG’s, as the reason your team is getting smoked? What if the enemy team are all mediocre players, while your team are expert SMG players? There are so many variables at play, you can’t realistically expect me to believe that the lack of being able to change loadouts is the culprit.

Of course I’m going suggest that the way I believe is the best is the only way to go, why would I suggest that what I class is a bad way to go is also a reasonable option?

It’s called being objective… seeing both the good and bad in your choices.

[Anti]

Folks, DA’s opinion is as valid as anybody elses, everybodies is. The reason we’re discussing this is we want to hear those opinions and the thinking behind them so we can decide if what we’re doing is in our, and the whole communities, best interests. You folks need to be a touch less damning in your debates

With regards to the Brink skill system I’m not sure it’s a great example of ‘within class’ variety and is very different to this system. In Brink the range of skills and their impact was far too wide and in the end there were unfortunately skills or ‘builds’ that were vastly better than others. On top of that we did end up with folks specialising heavily in a single class, to the detriment of their others and their team.

The suggestion for DB is that everybody has five equally viable characters in a match, one that fills each of the roles we anticipate a team will need at various points during a match. Differentiation between characters within a class comes as side-grades that don’t prevent you performing the role you expect to with that class, but that simply give you alternate methods by which to achieve it - hopefully ones that suit the different play styles players like to adopt.

To me this is a very similar structure and team dynamic to the Initiator, Carry, Support and Pusher type roles, but varied characters and abilities, that exist in MOBA games, except applicable to Objective style gameplay and scaled to fit it.

[tokamak]

With regards to the Brink skill system I’m not sure it’s a great example of ‘within class’ variety and is very different to this system. In Brink the range of skills and their impact was far too wide and in the end there were unfortunately skills or ‘builds’ that were vastly better than others. On top of that we did end up with folks specialising heavily in a single class, to the detriment of their others and their team.

It wasn’t possible to specialise heavily in a single class without leaving coins on the table. If you used all the coins then you could max out two teams, if you handled it efficiently you could get the most vital abilities easily in three classes and only once you wanted all four classes balanced, that’s when the butter was starting to smear thin.

So I can’t say I recognise this problem. The way you configured your character could’ve been much more consequential.

[DarkangelUK]

I mentioned the older games, simply to show you that t the system can work, since you to seem think otherwise. Either that, or you are aware that system works, you just don’t like regardless.

You’re failing to understand that that system didn’t exist in the older games. You said it yourself, medics only had 1 gun and that was it. DB allows for the medic to have multiple guns which are then denied to you. I understand what you’re saying, allied medic with thompson is the same only having a DB medic with the SMG… but that’s not all we have, we have medics with shotguns which we’re denied access to, therefore being denied an additional strategic option.

Not all RPG’s rely on dice rolls… I also used MOBA’s as an example - another genre that relys on player skill. I also mentioned older FPS games that do this - do you need more examples?

You can mention other games to the cows come home, won’t convince me it’s a fit for DB.

But we are talking about fixed class loadouts, not unlocking features and skill trees, so where exactly does this Brink example fit in?
While ingame in brink, your choice is fixed and you have to live with it, I don’t see how this is confusing.

/facepalm…

my comment was to show you another side of the argument…

And your failing was thinking I didn’t know. I knew about it, it’s not convincing enough. As I said, several threads that span about 15 pages each… you’re saying nothing new.

The fixed class design (regardless how much you detest it) works. It has been proven not only in other FPS games, but other genres as well. What you propose in your example, brings up an excellent point - if you are a lone wolf player; constantly wanting the ability to change and adapt; to never be at a disadvantage.

A few factors are at play here:

• how much of a disadvantage does this put you in
• can relying on teammates counter it.
• Is the enemy team simply more skilled than you, regardless of your loadout

As I mentioned before, doesn’t the shotgun medic have an SMG or machine pistol as a secondary gun? Does this not offset the lack of having an SMG primary weapon? Do you really contribute the fact that one team has SMG’s and shotguns, oppsed to just having SMG’s, as the reason your team is getting smoked? What if the enemy team are all mediocre players, while your team are expert SMG players? There are so many variables at play, you can’t realistically expect me to believe that the lack of being able to change loadouts is the culprit.

Works because you say so yeah? I’d rather know it wasn’t the culprit than being denied the chance to find out and being forced to live with it. If anything you’re making a better case against it… if having access to it then exposes me to my failings as a player then i’ll be much better off for it instead of living in ignorant bliss thinking my loadout is the issue.

It’s called being objective… seeing both the good and bad in your choices.

You should try it.

[SockDog]

You still believe the game is about matching the right tool to the right situation. That’s also how you see the class specialisations. You think the game is about knowing when to use the right class specialisation.

Yes, in part that is what the games HAVE been about. Much like picking the right weapon, location, movement. It’s all decisions based on actual data. You want to replace that with a dice roll.

That’s not what the game is about. The game is about having unique play-styles and then knowing how to play them in such a way that their strengths are maximised and their weaknesses covered. Your tool is given, the situations need to be found rather than the other way around.

Again, forget about how players put a selection of tools into place, actual play style. Instead you want to enforce a faux skill system that limits people, you think this is going to be fun, facing situations where you’re screwed and just have to wait it out until you become useful again. Oh wait, this won’t happen because the game can be turned into a bland mess that keeps everyone entertained regardless of the million and one choices they can make. Everyone’s a winner baby!

And yes that does mean that sometimes it’s more challenging that other times. The bell-curve idea means that you can have different standard deviations. You can pick a character with mild highs and lows and you can pick a character with extreme highs and lows, whatever you’re more comfortable with.

And we’re back to the average character - EXCITING! or the character ensured of moments of frustration - THRILLING!

Why are you so scared of a game just relying on people being able to make quick decisions and with quick reactions. Are you even playing DB? There has been some amazingly close matches, it makes your heart pound and never at any point do I mumble to myself, oh this would be so much better if I could limit my choices.

[QUOTE=Anti;411308]Folks, DA’s opinion is as valid as anybody elses, everybodies is. The reason we’re discussing this is we want to hear those opinions and the thinking behind them so we can decide if what we’re doing is in our, and the whole communities, best interests. You folks need to be a touch less damning in your debates

With regards to the Brink skill system I’m not sure it’s a great example of ‘within class’ variety and is very different to this system. In Brink the range of skills and their impact was far too wide and in the end there were unfortunately skills or ‘builds’ that were vastly better than others. On top of that we did end up with folks specialising heavily in a single class, to the detriment of their others and their team.

The suggestion for DB is that everybody has five equally viable characters in a match, one that fills each of the roles we anticipate a team will need at various points during a match. Differentiation between characters within a class comes as side-grades that don’t prevent you performing the role you expect to with that class, but that simply give you alternate methods by which to achieve it - hopefully ones that suit the different play styles players like to adopt.

To me this is a very similar structure and team dynamic to the Initiator, Carry, Support and Pusher type roles, but varied characters and abilities, that exist in MOBA games, except applicable to Objective style gameplay and scaled to fit it.[/QUOTE]

I’m willing to give it a try but am apprehensive about it feeling constrictive and frustrating and I’d hate to think you change the game just to prevent that from happening. All I can say from experience right now is that the alt loadouts being a bit buggy to select is driving my behaviour and it feel frustrating at times that I can’t simply select what I want and respawn.

[DarkangelUK]

I’ll be honest here, this is how I see it if the system is implemented:

[ul]
[li]The casuals that don’t care will continue to not care either way.[/li][li]Those that relish the challenge of stepping up their strategy to deal with a situation by using what they have will be fine.[/li][li]Those that want to adapt by using a different tool set won’t be able to and will be annoyed/pissed off with the situation.[/li][/ul]

This is how I see it if the system isn’t implemented and we have access to all:

[ul]
[li]The casuals that don’t care will continue to not care either way.[/li][li]Those that relish the challenge of stepping up their strategy to deal with a situation by using what they have will be fine… they simply don’t change loadout.[/li][li]Those that want to adapt by using a different tool set can do so.[/li][/ul]

The first option leaves a portion of players frustrated with a design choice, the other keeps everyone happy. If you’re not affected by the other crowd getting their way, why be against it?

As I said, if it comes down to a technical reason then there’s nothing we can do about that and will merrily be on my way.

[Ashog]

Well, I’d hope we could balance the game so that mines are as valuable as a turret for one.

Except that they are not. They have absolutely different tactical meaning and usage! If mines are nice to use in choke points hidden in narrow places and around the corners, the turrets are critical to hold off the attackers on more open areas. For example if the EV is disabled and the time is ticking, one turret placed on the path of incoming engineers could win the missing 30 seconds for ending the map on TL. The game is running against the clock - that’s as you know the crucial parameter. Another example - a timely placed turret inside a waterloo station could give an enginner several precious seconds to disarm the C4 and save the map. Turrets placed there in the dark corners generally help well to hold the attacjers off for some time on this vast inside area. Perhaps the turrets are not appreciated or valued enough in defence tacs yet, but this will surely come with more gameplay experience - ETQW and TF are the typical testimonies to that. Having no turrets by random chance of class layout selection could lead to frustrating steamrolls, I bet, just as it is in ETQW when for some reason engies don’t deploy anything.

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.

I personally don’t see anything wrong with that. As above they are not critical yet but this will change. The thing is that as soon as they are in the game, the tactics of most matches will rely on the turrets too (among with other gadgets), but if their appearance is random, it will be frustrating. Better to remove them at all then. Same goes for mines.

[shirosae]

They have absolutely different tactical meaning and usage! If mines are nice to use in choke points hidden in narrow places and around the corners, the turrets are critical to hold off the attackers on more open areas.

This is a really valid point. The shotgun/mine is really good on twisty turny maps like the pre-steal London Bridge EV escort, but the turret/SMG combo is really good on Waterloo’s plant objective. Even if both are equally balanced overall, they do have a dramatically different focus. I’d hate to see myself never using Eng1 because there was a slight open field balance across the map rotation, making Eng2 slightly more suited overall.

If it’s purely a technical issue, it might be worthwhile taking a small performance hit for the sake of offering two alt classes per ‘deck’? Depends on the hit I guess.

[Anti]

Except that they are not…

I said ‘as valuable’ rather than ‘serve the same function’

The examples you gave are ones where indeed the turret might be a clincher. I could give you ones where a mine might be a clincher too though, so I’m not sure those examples really help. Especially as in a lot of cases they’d be dependant on you happening to be that class at the time you needed, a switch if you could do it may not always help.

DA: Your points are good, I like them, although they do ignore the potential tech issues and what they might take to fix, which we can’t. That’s something we need to discuss more internally, maybe we can find a nicer solution.

Don’t get me wrong, choice is normally better and I understand what you’re saying, but in this case I genuinely don’t think a set of loadouts for a single match is a huge issue and certainly a lot of other FPS games offer this kind of system without any real frustration being expressed by their players.

[tangoliber]

I think that being stuck with one character for a match can be fun because of the strategic decisions it can lead too. (A certain character might give you a big advantage on a key objective, but might be a liability in others.) It creates an interesting metagame.

However, the system described for DB still gives you the option of 5 fixed loadouts, so people aren’t really going to be stuck with any 1 character. They may be forced to change classes, but they will still have 5 options. Because of this, its sort of not the best of either world. If technical limitations weren’t the problem, then it would probably be best to just give complete freedom of selection, but if they are, then I don’t think a lot of problems will arise from this system.

[BioSnark]

Don’t get me wrong, choice is normally better and I understand what you’re saying, but in this case I genuinely don’t think a set of loadouts for a single match is a huge issue and certainly a lot of other FPS games offer this kind of system without any real frustration being expressed by their players.

How about letting players choose them before each map starts?

I was no fan of the system in Brink where classes couldn’t respec in match. Ultimately that didn’t matter much because players could allocate unlimited points into just a couple classes and transfer that limitation from alternate class specs to limited playable classes. (ignoring the DAUK+Horse examples that maybe I’m misunderstanding) It would not have been a wise decision to limit players to choosing either the rocket soldier or the heavy mg soldier in ET:QW.

I can understand the decision in terms of not letting some players have a payed/unlock advantage of having many options where others have few. I think that’s a fair argument to make and it’s the one I expected you to make. I don’t really understand why it would be a technical limitation given how mundane it seems but I’ll take your word for it.

[Anti]

[QUOTE=BioSnark;411383]How about letting players choose them before each map starts?

[/QUOTE]

Maybe I wasn’t clear, but they could, just not mid-map.

[BioSnark]

thank you for that clarification.