What do you want to see in the next game?

(Humate) #21

Its not a matter of choice, but rather capacity.

(tokamak) #22

[QUOTE=BioSnark;406775]“so that they can’t change it ad hoc.”

because that’s always a bad… wait, adaptation’s a bad thing?[/QUOTE]

If it takes the value out of anticipation then it´s a bad thing. There needs to be some inertia in your choices otherwise your choices will be made frivolously.

(BioSnark) #23

Thanks for judging my choices.

(tokamak) #24

If you can change it at will then it’s hardly a choice in the first place. Opportunity cost makes your choices matter.

(BioSnark) #25

In ETQW’s NEurope campaign, if I want to win Salvage as GDF (by having useful unlocks at a competitive level with my opponent), I should stick to medic or engineer infantry throughout the campaign. If I want to win the preceding maps, I should generally play soldier (rocket launcher) and vehicle, respectively and depending on team makeup. But hey, that’s the choice.

Having to choose what equipment, weapons or vehicles I should use to best counter my opponent’s configuration doesn’t count as a choice because these only cost time/objectives during one match rather than costing early matches to win subsequent ones.

Would that be an accurate summery of what you mean? If not, sorry and please explain.

Opportunity cost exists in abundance in any game with multiple differentiated weapons, classes, and combat areas. Obviously, including vehicles and deployables/abilites adds more. A situation like what I’ve described in the beginning of this post or any where myself or my team is penalized be an unlock system if they have the nerve to alter their configuration to deal with a specific threat/objective or class mix is a situation that detracts heavily from the game at a tactical level.

If you want strategy, it should be done coherently on a team-wide level by, say, a commander. See Natural Selection 1 (and probably two, in a couple weeks) for an instance of how this can be successfully accomplished. Having everyone running their own conflicting, locked* in loadouts isn’t a good idea in public game full of random people.

*whether by permanent unlocks or by carrot/stick campaign unlocks.

(tokamak) #26

[QUOTE=BioSnark;406814]In ETQW’s NEurope campaign, if I want to win Salvage as GDF (by having useful unlocks at a competitive level with my opponent), I should stick to medic or engineer infantry throughout the campaign. If I want to win the preceding maps, I should generally play soldier (rocket launcher) and vehicle, respectively and depending on team makeup. But hey, that’s the choice.

Having to choose what equipment, weapons or vehicles I should use to best counter my opponent’s configuration doesn’t count as a choice because these only cost time/objectives during one match rather than costing early matches to win subsequent ones.

Would that be an accurate summery of what you mean? If not, sorry and please explain.[/QUOTE]

Yes that’s exactly what I mean. Though there are more possibilities, like a permanent character baseline with boosters on specialisations the player likes to advance faster in during a game. In general this is exactly the long therm vision that separates the expert players from the mediocre players.

It’s not difficult to determine what the best options are in the immediate situation. But it takes skill to determine what the best options will be later on. This skillset is neglected when you can keep on adjusting without cost.

(Humate) #27

No it doesnt.

edit: :slight_smile:

(.Chris.) #28

With players coming and going throughout the duration of a campaign and with each map potentially being vastly different to one another then there is no way you can possibly determine what the best options will be later on. It would be blind luck if the choices you made when connecting proved to be for the best or not.

(tokamak) #29

That’s the inherent risk of specialisation. It can have a huge pay off but if you don’t like the idea of specialising the wrong way you simply make sure you go for a balanced build. Really knowing what you want and a consistent, persistent plan is something that games need to reward. This reward needs to be offset with a substantial risk of making poor decisions.

It´s the whole having your cake and eat it attitude that makes games bland COD clones. It leads to a very reactive, ad hoc way of playing which completely kills any larger ideas and concepts.

(BioSnark) #30

Not having such a system is a COD clone in the same way it’s a Quake, Unreal Tournament, Delta Force, HLDM and most any other non-mmorpg player versus player game clone. It isn’t. Speaking of rpgs and unfair comparisons, having to level farm to get to pvp level is not a good element in mmorpgs. I don’t see why it is desirable in any other genre.

Choosing whether I want to best help my team on the current map or let them flounder and farm them for future maps is a poor choice for everyone. If you want some sort of strategic layer, it should either be done outside of public games where there’s a chance at coordination and to avoiding conflicts, duplication and late player turnover or it should be done with a single commander researching tech upgrades for his/her team.

(tokamak) #31

That’s apples and pears. We’re talking about tactical shooters with choices pre-spawn.

Choosing whether I want to best help my team on the current map or let them flounder and farm them for future maps is a poor choice for everyone.

Then what’s the sodding point in running campaigns in the first place? It’s exactly the larger scale context in which these matches take place. It adds meaning to the matches. It means that a success or a failure doesn’t just improves or decreases your chance at completing the next objective, it also means that it ripples through in all the other goals you have.

The objective of ETQW isn’t to win a single match. It’s to win the most out of three. Having your decisions carry on into the subsequent matches is something that added a whole extra layer to the game. W:ET was even better with longer matches and even six-map campaigns.

And mind you, it was something Brink missed entirely.

The field of tension between short-therm gains and long-therm growth is a very interesting aspect that gets too often neglected in games, especially shooters.

(DarkangelUK) #32

If the idea was to win the whole campaign, why did stats site count individual matches in the W/L and not the whole campaign? Were campaign wins ever tracked at all on the stats site? The idea of 3 (or more) map campaigns was to give a decent amount of time for XP gain to rack up class unlocks which couldn’t be achieved over a single match… I guess that was the sodding point.

(BioSnark) #33

Oh, I wasn’t aware COD was considered a tactical shooter. I don’t see what that distinction changes but that’s largely irrelevant. I and others have pointed out flaws in this system and I offered one possible solution in hopes this would progress but I guess it’s preferable to keep the discussion circular.

(tokamak) #34

I’m comparing tactical shooters you’re comparing the entire shooter genre. My distinction is relevant and yours is not as there’s way too many games, like the entire arena sub-genre that are highly unsuitable for long-therm implications.

Because the statistics site was completely rubbish. But I’m glad at least someone appears to have valued it…

(Senethro) #35

As usual, Toka thinks that he wants the possibility for the player to make bad decisions about their (ugh) “build”.

The main reason for this is that he thinks he will make better decisions than the average player and have an advantage.

(tokamak) #36

Ah now that’s refreshing. So far I’ve only been accused of making the game easier and bring it down to my level.

(BioSnark) #37

To clarify, I was saying your whole point bringing up COD was derailing or ignoring what could be a constructive discussion. I could also bring up tactical shooters but, if we aren’t going anywhere, there would be no point except to say, “I’m right and you’re wrong”.

As a side note, and not meant maliciously, you are misspelling the word, “term” as “therm.”

(tokamak) #38

Well if we’re going to compare things with other games then I think these comparisons need to be made on the largest relevant scale. Grouping all shooters together is simply too large for the parallels to be relevant.

And cheers! That’s a mistake I keep making. Appreciated.

(Humate) #39

In terms of strategy unlocks are completely meaningless in etqw tok.
ETQW is mainly about forcing the opposition into an undesirable class distribution.
Its strategy on a team level, not an individual one.

Granted, etqw strategy comes to life in organised play, not pub play.
So I can understand being frustrated by that.

(DarkangelUK) #40

For someone that wants the player driven by a numbers game and not actual fun and desire, I thought you would appreciate the pointer towards stats. Just seems strange that you couldn’t understand the point of campaigns tbh.

He’s almost right, though I think you just want to pretend you’re better than others when you can’t actually be… or at least have the game pat you on the head to make think you are to aid the illusion…