What do you want to see in the next game?

(YouAreGood) #141

Well… More weapons than in ET:QW, and it was fine. About maps - yes, plenty “community”-made maps did the job that developer did not. therefore, i see no argument in ET few preinstalled maps, as it practically had thousands of maps. Does not matter who made it all.

About unlocks - what they do is putting some penalty on class-change, doing that they deepens the gameplay experience in terms of tactics. The longer you play certain class, the higher the cost of a change, so best approach is choosing right class from the beginning. It fails a bit when campaign is considered though, because player may have no idea about what the next map objectives are. If the campaign would be made up of consequent actions, also using using some previous map feedback to make things from the “past” matters…

About symmetry - there is no, as the sides of the map are not mirror-copied. Solely because of that same classes produces asymmetric game. If example is needed - say a good sniper spot… Better bottlenecks…

About damage model and duelling - agree, it would be nice to see the same as in ET, with the same good old headshot sound :).

(Dthy) #142

I think in the next game they could make some of the custom maps made from by the community for previous games into official maps. They could also put little easter eggs hidden in maps which refer to forum members for s**ts and giggles.

(.Chris.) #143

Also promotes XP farming, makes players more interested in themselves rather than the needs of the team, makes them less likely to swap to other classes when the map calls for it, creates overpowered individuals at times during a campaign if players leave and new ones join, unbalancing the teams further.

DA in the class thread asks if folk had played RTCW, sadly I haven’t, I started with W:ET, loved it to bits but as time has passed I do wonder what it would have been like to play W:ET without XP and rewards associated with XP, I used to be indifferent about XP but now I beginning to despise the whole system.

That wouldn’t work because the games aren’t the same, plus there using different engine with different editing tools, would have to make them from scratch and as such they might as well just built some new original maps tailored for their new game.

(Fooooo) #144

I started with RTCW, but only about a few months or so before W:ET came out, which I then switched to…for what reason I cannot exactly remember as it was a long time ago now, but it was something about it being more like ww2 than wolfenstein was if you get me…more realistic I guess ? (silly as its nowhere near realistic really…:slight_smile: )

In W:ET I did not mind the unlocks in the pubs, it somewhat mixed it up a little, and I liked trying to overcome the players who had already been on the server for the other maps in the campaign. Not everyone would enjoy that tho.

As for playing W:ET without unlocks…in comp games the unlock system was never used…at least, you could never “earn” them thru xp.

The unlocks were set at preset spots depending if the comps rules allowed them, which was usually determined by the community itself I[/I]. Most I played in, (in aus), followed the Euro rulesets…from what I remember…which had a few that were deemed good for comp play, the rest were locked.

The same thing happened in ET:QW…

There were a few comps that used none of the unlocks as well and they seemed to play pretty much the same as the ones with a few turned on…mainly because the ones with them turned on didn’t use the OP unlocks…or at least ones deemed to be OP or bad for comp.

All that said, RTCW was a great game, looking back I regret not getting into it as much as I did ET…I guess I have SD to blame for that…:oppressor:

(H0RSE) #145

[QUOTE=.Chris.;408581]
DA in the class thread asks if folk had played RTCW, sadly I haven’t, I started with W:ET, loved it to bits but as time has passed I do wonder what it would have been like to play W:ET without XP and rewards associated with XP, I used to be indifferent about XP but now I beginning to despise the whole system…[/QUOTE]

I did play RTCW, for quite awhile before W:ET came out. I still consider it my favorite MP game of all time. W:ET was fun, but RTCW was better. The XP system in ET was a fun mechanic, but like was mentioned, it made for people playing selfishly - farming xp and such, and also created unbalance.

(YouAreGood) #146

[QUOTE=.Chris.;408581]Also promotes XP farming, makes players more interested in themselves rather than the needs of the team, makes them less likely to swap to other classes when the map calls for it, creates overpowered individuals at times during a campaign if players leave and new ones join, unbalancing the teams further.

DA in the class thread asks if folk had played RTCW, sadly I haven’t, I started with W:ET, loved it to bits but as time has passed I do wonder what it would have been like to play W:ET without XP and rewards associated with XP, I used to be indifferent about XP but now I beginning to despise the whole system.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, these are cons. I don;t like the XP idea too, although the class change penalty seems having also pros in terms of tactical shooter deepness.

Also there is much more than XP, what turns the game into purest form of absurd. Say badges and ranks - ppl shooting vehicles or turrets no matter what were also quite problematic in ET:QW… And don’t forget - badges and ranks does totally nothing… Whole idea does damage to the teamplay and that;s it. No pros. You may say there is some information about how long sb is playing… fakes are the answer to that.

Therefore I partially agree with your critique of the XP and unlockables.

(Thundermuffin) #147

Feeling like you cannot change your class because you have earned too much does not create a deep experience. It creates a shallow one where the teams are completely static and the match never evolves. You should never make a player feel like if they switch to a new class to help the team that they are punishing themselves or that they need to think it over to because of XP unlocks. They should only think it over to make sure it’s the best decision they can make at that moment.

(Humate) #148

The only unlocks that impact the game, arent loss on a class switch anyway.
And even then, they only effect players of equal skill level.

(Thundermuffin) #149

Yeah I know the majors one are transferable and really only effect people on equal footing, but I took his statement to mean that he liked the idea of unlocks and perks that would really put you at a disadvantage if you switched and really made you think about switching.

I was thinking about it like where you had to unlock your revive tool/repair kit like in Bad Company 2, and that if you switched from medic to engineer you would have to start over and unlock that classes’ special tool (but instead of having it be something that is unlocked forever, you have to do it each campaign like W:ET/ETQW unlocks). I know that is extremely farfetched, but it makes my point that I just don’t like the idea of making a player have to base their decision to switch to a different class on whether they will lose something they earned since in pubs a lot of people would end up not switching.

(Humate) #150

I wasnt having a go at what you were saying… just explaining how they work :slight_smile:

(tangoliber) #151

My ideal game would have the following:

  1. Hipfire only gunplay (except for sniper rifles, though those can work as hipfire too)
  2. Amount of health is similar to UT or Halo. High headshot bonus.
  3. Accurate weapons, aside from chainguns and other such weapons.
  4. Mostly close-quarters combat (maps similar to Brink). I’m not a big fan of open field combat.
  5. Map making tools and some sort of built-in system for rating and sharing maps.
  6. Tossable packs (health, ammo) and deployable structures (turrets, dispensers, regen units), rather than context-sensitive support actions
  7. Lots of match customization options. Everything from spawn times to defuse times to disabling certain weapons.
  8. Built in clan system with the ability to invite players, challenge other clans, create/join tournaments, share demos and comment on them.
  9. Stopwatch is the primary game mode. Maps are offensively biased.
  10. Packaged class variants with unique guns, abilities and skin…instead of loadout customization.
(Thundermuffin) #152

I know you weren’t, I just realized I wasn’t very clear about what I was actually responding to and wanted to make sure others understood. :slight_smile:

(YouAreGood) #153

This argument line seems to forget about the pros, where you have to foresee what class will be the right to choose. As I said before - tactical dimension is what I am talking about. And whether or not this makes game static… take a look on ET, ETQW, maybe also Brink…Nevertheless it does causes problems - off course it’s not all-white solution.

(tokamak) #154

[QUOTE=tangoliber;408608]My ideal game would have the following:

  1. Hipfire only gunplay (except for sniper rifles, though those can work as hipfire too)
  2. Amount of health is similar to UT or Halo. High headshot bonus.
  3. Accurate weapons, aside from chainguns and other such weapons.
  4. Mostly close-quarters combat (maps similar to Brink). I’m not a big fan of open field combat.
  5. Map making tools and some sort of built-in system for rating and sharing maps.
  6. Tossable packs (health, ammo) and deployable structures (turrets, dispensers, regen units), rather than context-sensitive support actions
  7. Lots of match customization options. Everything from spawn times to defuse times to disabling certain weapons.
  8. Built in clan system with the ability to invite players, challenge other clans, create/join tournaments, share demos and comment on them.
  9. Stopwatch is the primary game mode. Maps are offensively biased.
  10. Packaged class variants with unique guns, abilities and skin…instead of loadout customization.[/QUOTE]

CS:GO already exists though.

(tangoliber) #155

I respect CS:GO, but I prefer the gunplay of something like UT3 or a good PC version of Halo. I want constant movement, power armor, and radically different weapons…not a lot of quick kills, crouching, and slightly different machine guns. At the same time… for the sake of teamwork and territory control, I don’t want it to be as fast as something like Quake 3 or Nexuiz.
Also, the realistic military atmosphere of CS is suffocating to me… as is CoD and Battlefield. :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #156

And how about using rocket launchers and plasma weapons on these military shooter types?

(tangoliber) #157

Well, you’d have to give them the magic power armor, or else rockets would be one hit kills. At that point, you have already gone into space marine territory. If you give players a lot of health, but don’t give them some sort of visual explanation like magic power armor, then it will feel uncomfortable for them. Sort of like how the health model in Brink was not bad… still a little low for my taste, but much better than most current gen games… but because you can run around shirtless and then absorb 7 SMG bullets, it creates a visual disconnect. It’s not a problem for me…but I think its an issue for the majority of the players these days who place a lot of importance on immersion.

Also, while I will play a military-themed shooter if other aspects of the game appeal to me, there is just something about real war, our counter-terrorism, or whatever, that is incredibly boring to me. Everything from the real world settings, to guys in uniform barking orders.

A lot of the times, the difference is very slight, and I can’t really place it.
For example: BF3 Assault Class skin : http://images.wikia.com/battlefield/images/5/57/BF3-AssaultUS_High_Res.jpg
The above looks really boring to me.
On the other hand…this Killzone 2 Medic skin is only slightly different…slightly more futuristic…slightly more stylized… and somehow I love it…
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/4759/584953-2.jpg
Same with this Killzone 2 Tactician skin:
I’m not really sure why. I quite liked a lot of the Security skins for the bots in Brink too. They did a good job of giving an “elite team” feeling, without the stuffy real world military seriousness.

(tokamak) #158

Well drop realism for a moment. There are multiple ways to balance this. What matters is that you have old-school mechanics on one side and COD mechanics on the other. Blowing them up in one shot is possible but that would need to be offset by skewing the teams (4 arcade guys vs 12 military guys) or by giving them a longer respawn time. The Arcade team would have the higher hp, the firepower and the mobility, but the Military team would have the health regen, the crowd control toys and all the class abilities and let’s not forget vehicles and everything.

And of course the setting would matter. A war-torn landscape in which suddenly all kind of fantastic arcade shooter parts of the map appear. The military guys would excel behind small corridors and lots of cover while the arcade guys need open space and verticality and jump-pads and everything. Combine both and you got a level where the situation constantly swings the favour back and forth between the factions.

And of course another thing that could matter is having the arcade guys be bigger and definitely more flashy (full wilt lights and bright skins) than the military people (apt camouflage for each level) larger hitboxes and more collision in more dense geometry are another way to bring balance to fights.

Arcade guys also have a problem on the long distance due to the lack of ironsights and scopes. Most of their weapons will be particle based while the military has hitscan.

(DarkangelUK) #159

Sounds like Crysis 3’s Hunter Mode

(tokamak) #160

Which I guess is based on UT2k4’s mutant mode (which was really fun as well. UT2k4 was really underrated and underplayed)

But the game-mode itself should remain objective. Rather than Strogg and Allies there’s simply Arcade vs Millitary with a much more extreme asymmetry.