What do you want to see in the next game?

(tokamak) #41

[QUOTE=Humate;406851]Granted, etqw strategy comes to life in organised play, not pub play.
So I can understand being frustrated by that.[/QUOTE]

So that’s why I’m arguing for a more flexible approach. You’re allowed to build a specialisation focus, a profile that dictates which ‘trees’ you grow in faster than others. Those specialisation focuses are visible to the rest of the team so you know which routes your team-mates tend to favour.

Now, most of the time this tends to balance out. 8 or 12 players with different focusses, provided there are enough. But I agree that a game should allow for flukes where you end up with people specialising the same way.

Say you get a budget of ‘100%’. You have to spent it out of the game and can’t change it while playing. What’s more, you actually have to earn resources in order to start shifting things around in your budget.

You put 60% in covert ops. 30% in soldier and a medic at 10%. These are xp-gain modifiers (not score modifiers, dont worry). This allows you to grow the covert ops class at 160%, the soldier at 130% and the medic with 110%. When you then see someone else with 180% covert ops specialisation then you may opt to forego your 160% growth rate because you see your team still needs fast-growing soldiers. And hey 130% is better than nothing.

That’s what I mean with having a permanent plan affecting your long therm choices in a campaign. You could put one class in 200% and grow very fast but then you also risk not having any options in case your team does the same thing.

And the percentages can of course be hidden under a more intuitive interface. It can be simplified in coins representing ‘10%’ which you can then spend on your classes or you can keep the dynamic aspect and have some visual chart where you can stretch a amoebae diagram in different directions.

The coolest part about this is that this allows for rewards that retain their value permanently. If there’s a cost to shifting weights somewhere else then players will need to keep on playing in order to adjust their build. That’s different from Brink where you eventually have everything unlocked and are ‘done’ in that part of the game.

(SockDog) #42

Just want to say that I think these points are not only valid but need serious consideration by SD.

Things like “builds” could add a lot to arranged matches between two teams. In the randomness that is a pub game they just throw in elements that mean you’ll lose regardless of your actual ability to play the game well. And no, I still don’t accept the contradictory argument that an ability can both have an impact and not have an impact at the same time.

I’m eager to see how NS2 works out. The key point though is that again you’re applying things on a team level rather than an individual, not sure how that can’t promote better team play.

(tokamak) #43

Already addressed that in the previous post.

(SockDog) #44

I think you addressed it while totally missing the point. This isn’t an single player or competitive game we’re talking about, what you’re asking for is going to make the game annoying and even more random. You’re removing people abilities to make considered decisions and instead expecting them to make a predetermined choice and live with the fact that X out of 10 games is going to suck balls. The point is that while a single player game you make a choice and play through as a consequence (something the developer balances for), in an MP game you’re reliant on 15 other player’s choices and a developer dumbing down everything so as to avoid you feeling cheated. Net result, either you lose unfairly or you win with little perceived value in the upgrades.

(tokamak) #45

It goes both ways, your decisions become more permanent but the consequences are less determining than in ordinary ETQW because you get to advance your preferred classes faster than you would normally.

It means a player fully committing to playing a particular style (either niche or widely balanced) has an advantage over a player who’s just arbitrarily picking directions. Or better, there’s just space for players to commit further than they ordinarily would without necessitating such choices.

(.Chris.) #46

I’ve probably misunderstood what you meant by that but it currently happens without all the bollocks, someone who specialises with the sniper and sticks with it over time has an advantage over someone who just picked to use the sniper that round. Simply through learning that role and practice, don’t need persistent unlock crap and skill trees to achieve that same outcome. Even better if a map or stage of a map calls for no sniper or covops, they can switch role and be useful to the team.

(Humate) #47

And no, I still don’t accept the contradictory argument that an ability can both have an impact and not have an impact at the same time.

It has a significant impact, when the skill level of the server is very even. :slight_smile:
When there are players of all sorts of skill levels, then it will be both.

(tokamak) #48

Right and my system amplifies that even further. The players that know their qualities will get to bank in on those qualities up front. Right now a player only gets to display his talents within the rate at which the game allows him to progress. With such a boost profile he gets to push that envelope.

(SockDog) #49

Boosting isn’t the point.

You’re arguing for a fake system of perks over an open system that allows actual skill. We’ve been through this before. It’s the old, unlock sprint perk vs learning maps/movement to gain more speed. What makes it worse is the more you lock the game to perks the less it can allow actual skills to better those perks. Congratulations, you’ve created a Top Trumps FPS.

(tokamak) #50

The idea that the temporary campaign unlocks don´t reward skill is just completely backwards. It’s the best players that will get their toys much faster than the rest.

(SockDog) #51

It’s the best players of the system that unlocks them. But this is getting off the subject as I thought we were talking about fix character builds and skill trees not the largely transferable between class temp unlocks during a campaign.

  1. I hate the thought of building a character that suits “my style” only to play games where that character’s suitability for the game I’ve joined is totally random. BTW this isn’t any more an extra challenge or requiring of skill than joining a server and having 8 random players get a double damage boost.

  2. Investment in a character and class discourages class changing, something that is essential for a pub game where you can’t ensure a good class configuration.

  3. In order for a character build to be worthwhile the perks need to have worth. This means taking away something from other players, limiting their freedom and adaptability to prop up such a system. Essentially you’re saying that instead of being skilled in judging drop and leading a target to be a good sniper you’d give a steady aim perk and a laser guided bullet perk if you grind enough. That’s a frigging meta game not an FPS, worse actually, it’s a random meta game (AKA Top Trumps). Again, this is much more suited to a single player game or competitive environment.

(tokamak) #52

  1. That’s why permanent choices can’t be absolute things like unlocks or improved stats. It would take away from the value of campaigns. The permanent aspect of the game needs to about rates in which players develop themselves through the campaign. That means they can limit themselves at their own leisure if they think the added focus will pay off.

  2. In a way that’s the point of it yeah. To make players stick to their plans and only deviate from it if it’s no longer feasible. But it’s actually much more flexible than you make it out to be. Players can also chose for a balanced growth rate spanning all classes and whatnot. That means they’ll just play the game as it would be now without noticing a difference. The option is merely there for players that want to specialise in a particular direction.

On point 3) That’s simply how that field of tension works. Take away all the meta game stuff and you end up with an instagib deathmatch. Fun in it’s own right but not very deep (yes I know you have videos of highly tactical instagib matches). I don’t even have problems with perks that drastically lower the necessity of skill provided a player pays a tremendous price for it. A player with guided sniper bullets would need to devote himself so far into getting that reward that he’d be completely gimped in all other aspects and completely screwed in any other situation where players with more balanced builds dominate the scene.

(SockDog) #53

[QUOTE=tokamak;406872]1) That’s why permanent choices can’t be absolute things like unlocks or improved stats. It would take away from the value of campaigns. The permanent aspect of the game needs to about rates in which players develop themselves through the campaign. That means they can limit themselves at their own leisure if they think the added focus will pay off.

  1. In a way that’s the point of it yeah. To make players stick to their plans and only deviate from it if it’s no longer feasible. But it’s actually much more flexible than you make it out to be. Players can also chose for a balanced growth rate spanning all classes and whatnot. That means they’ll just play the game as it would be now without noticing a difference. The option is merely there for players that want to specialise in a particular direction.

On point 3) That’s simply how that field of tension works. Take away all the meta game stuff and you end up with an instagib deathmatch. Fun in it’s own right but not very deep (yes I know you have videos of highly tactical instagib matches). I don’t even have problems with perks that drastically lower the necessity of skill provided a player pays a tremendous price for it. A player with guided sniper bullets would need to devote himself so far into getting that reward that he’d be completely gimped in all other aspects and completely screwed in any other situation where players with more balanced builds dominate the scene.[/QUOTE]

  1. You say that then say there is an absolute persistent choice. There is no difference from giving someone a sniper perk unlock as part of a character build, compared to giving them 3x XP in the sniper class to unlock the sniper perk in a campaign. Point is people will still only play on the class they’ve invested in the most. This totally screws up the team as people are encouraged to play for themselves and not as team.

  2. You’re creating an environment that discourages choice and variation. You’re not building characters to solve problems one of several different balanced ways. You’re joining a team with 7 other randoms, facing 8 more randoms to solve a revolving list of objectives. The only choice left to you is that if your decisions outside the match mean you can’t contribute you get penalised (or most likely quit and join another server where you’ll be overpowered). It’s just a terrible idea for an MP game, if you need a reminder go play Brink and ask whether you’d happily give up your spec’d out medic to go lowly soldier because there isn’t one on your team. That adds to the game does it? Or does it just make you feel cheated and pissed off that you have to play at a disadvantage because of some stupid perk system.

  3. So you think it’s better for someone to play the game and paint themselves into a corner than the game allowing them to actually master the skills through real practice? Your reliance on rules is really stunning sometimes. It’s not tension you are creating, it’s false limitations, death by dice roll. Players don’t win on their own merit, they win by holding the right cards. Regardless of whether you think Q3 as the depth of a puddle the point is there are many components of that game that are learned and practised to be good, the same elements you want to hide behind a simple grind and click. Again, basically you want to restrict what people can do and think that will be more fun that placing that onus on their actual abilities.

(DarkangelUK) #54

Didn’t we witness all of this fail and cause problems in Brink? Players stuck with their preferred class regardless of the campaign and didn’t want to switch even though the objective called for it. Players didn’t want to switch because they had invested in their class of choice and didn’t want to be at a disadvantage with a class they haven’t spent time upgrading. Why add something that clearly didn’t work?

As for invested skill vs pretend skill via unlock/XP, that’s how lazy players want it. Up there with the good players without applying the effort necessary to get there.

(Smooth) #55

We definitely want to avoid players getting so invested in a single class that they don’t want to switch during a game. We also want any sort of progression we have to include a choice/skill factor.

(Humate) #56

You also dont want players blaming unlocks, as a reason they didnt do well.
Or maybe you do… i dont know :frowning:

(DarkangelUK) #57

Or giving them reason to blame them either, but that’s an obvious one that one.

(SockDog) #58

Seems the best compromise would be that unlocks operate across all classes. You then have only the issue of people whoring a particular class to race to an unlock, for that I can only think of a single team XP driving them.

(tokamak) #59

Laying boosters on a class is an indirect investment while buying unlocks, Brink style, is a direct investment. It’s a substantial difference because in Brink there’s no way out of your choices. With the booster system the character progression is much more dynamic and more importantly, very flexible. You can still start developing in other classes and obtain those unlocks if you wish. That’s impossible in Brink.

Point two basically makes the same Brink comparison. Again, this system only says when you can get your unlocks of specific classes the fastest rather than what unlocks you already have and can’t change from. This means there’s still an incentive to work your ass off because it means you get a more diversified and thus versatile build.

Brink also allows for choosing between specialisation and all-rounding. But the system is completely rigid. You can’t change anything within the match. However, once you see another player having boosted the same specialisation as you at the start of the game then you may opt to grab the first unlocks as fast as possible and then devote your time to different trees. You’ll develop slower due to not having boosted that tree (as much) but because you’re now filling a niche in your team chances you get compensated for faster growth by simply being more useful.

Again, all of this isn’t possible in Brink. You say you want a compromise, this IS the compromise. This is the middle route between permanent character growth (emphasis on permanent, it just never ends as long as you want to have something difference once in a while) and temporarily unlocks.

Mind you, the ‘100% budget’ is just an example. As a developer you get to decide how much weight this baseline profile has on the rate at which you develop. You could also give players a budget of 50% or 25% or 200%, it completely depends on the flat rate at which you acquire unlocks.

  1. So you think it’s better for someone to play the game and paint themselves into a corner than the game allowing them to actually master the skills through real practice? Your reliance on rules is really stunning sometimes. It’s not tension you are creating, it’s false limitations, death by dice roll. Players don’t win on their own merit, they win by holding the right cards. Regardless of whether you think Q3 as the depth of a puddle the point is there are many components of that game that are learned and practised to be good, the same elements you want to hide behind a simple grind and click. Again, basically you want to restrict what people can do and think that will be more fun that placing that onus on their actual abilities.

I think players need to have the option to state from the get go that this is how they want to play the game. I do it in ETQW all the time. I say to myself ‘this campaign I’ll be a rocket soldier’ and I’ll be one from start to finish regardless of whether there are other players doing the same. And again, players are completely free to say ‘this campaign I’ll have everything balanced and make up for the weakness in my team’. You’ll find that a combination of highly focussed specialists and a few all-rounders to fill in the gaps may even be more effective than a team filled with all-rounders.

Simply picking the right shape for the right hole is not a challenge. It’s trivial knowledge. Picking a square peg in advance and smashing it through a round hole however, that is something that takes skill.

That’s why Brink allowed for getting the important stuff for at least three classes. In Brink you decided which class you didn’t want to play.

As for the skill factor in unlocks, that’s a bold statement considering the folks here consider substantially taking the sway out of sniper rifles completely absolving it from requiring skill.

Well, in a way that’s what Brink did. If you want to have a level 25 operative then the best way to go about it was to farm the medic.

(.Chris.) #60

Yet in ET and ET:QW it’s hard enough to find people doing so, if it’s so trivial to pick the right shape for the right hole why do you still get teams full of snipers and medics when the map calls for engineers and heavy weapons. It’s just going to make matters worse going down your route.

They need to fix existing issues with the formula before introducing more like what they did with Brink.