[QUOTE=tokamak;216995]Classes are changeable during the match, you don’t even need to respawn to switch. But you’ll have to stick with your bodytype.
[/quote]
Wow, I am disappointed in myself. I completely forgot about command points, well does that mean the characters appearance is bound, or when I switch to soldier can I change what my appearance is as well as my loadout?
There hasn’t been said much about in what way you can control appearance. In the video Paul definitely changed his looks before he started the match.
Just my opinion: In a way it makes sense to keep it locked as dressing up during the match can be used to confuse people (you make yourself look like the top player in the team and the top player dresses down so you turn into a decoy to mess up their priority targets). It’s not really rewarding the players who keep their eyes open.
[QUOTE=tokamak;216995]
Yes, chance is a factor, and I consider responding to unpredected events and improvising as very valuable skills that are being tested through this. You’re just asserting that chance is a problem.[/QUOTE]
I am trying to ensure that chance will not be a problem actually. It is something I feel should be taken very seriously and I just need to be sure that SD has tested all possible scenarios. They are still testing this just for these reasons as stated, but it is not wrong in anyway to make sure that they take it as seriously as possible. Situations can arise in the official game that might not occur in the testing phases or taken into consideration by the devs, so it is important to ensure that everything is in check.
the way I understand it this far is, you got your character and you have choosen it’s body-type (may change it as you progress (rpg-style) or start a new career); once you play a game, you make choices on class and loadout as fits current situation, so unless you have the chance to play against a defending team of fatties, the enemies won’t turn into a blocking team of fatties…
What has been suggested is that body types won’t have a coherent influence on giving one side advantage over the other, as long as either side is able to play correctly. So under the right conditions and player ability, body type importance is ruled out. I just hope that everyone is competent enough to make that work if such situations arise :), otherwise there won’t be so many fans of the system (I am not at all worried about this on the comp scene though).
What I remember from one of the interviews is that changing the body shape is one of the options you will have to spend your XP’s on through the game levelling.
Again, competence is not a neccesity for balance as it’s a problem for both sides.
And it’s also pretty odd how you’re just gloating over the myriad of downsides of letting players change bodytypes during the game.
[QUOTE=tokamak;217034]Again, competence is not a neccesity for balance as it’s a problem for both sides.
And it’s also pretty odd how you’re just gloating over the myriad of downsides of letting players change bodytypes during the game.[/QUOTE]
What is wrong with unlockable or semi-unlockable body types that does not add strategy and balance? And don’t just say because it makes it too easy to adapt, it takes away from realism, or that’s just how it is. You keep saying that it is justified by the fact that both sides are under the same system, but that argument works for any choice. The problem with locking is that if one body type arrangement is better than another, how are you going to be able to ensure equal distribution on both sides in a pub? If one team is just better than another they might still win, but that does not make the problem any less important. If it ends up making a difference, then adaptive body type distribution on the go only makes logical sense. If you weren’t worried that they offered different advantages and disadvantages, then you wouldn’t care, but locking just doesn’t seem like the more secure way to go.
Who says there should be an equal distribution on both sides? Extreme, ‘all eggs in one basket’ teams sound incredibly fun to go play in or against.
And the most secure way to go is to remove all variation from the game and just have one class, one gun, and nothing else to duke it out, that way you can’t run into ‘potential problems’ of balance. Yes, the fun stuff requires more effort to make it work, but leaving them out because it’s more convenient makes for very lame and uninnovative games.
[QUOTE=tokamak;217077]Who says there should be an equal distribution on both sides? Extreme, ‘all eggs in one basket’ teams sound incredibly fun to go play in or against.
And the most secure way to go is to remove all variation from the game and just have one class, one gun, and nothing else to duke it out, that way you can’t run into ‘potential problems’ of balance. Yes, the fun stuff requires more effort to make it work, but leaving them out because it’s more convenient makes for very lame and uninnovative games.[/QUOTE]
Okay making some ground actually. That is a pretty valid point, except for the fact that there is no proposition to remove such features, but instead to simply make them more fluid and important. Unlocking adds variation does it not? If certain important elements were locked in place and players did not have the ability to manipulate them in a way that helped level the playing field in a manner that was achievable by both sides, then it would be fun and convenient for just one side. To me this is convenience in a good way, as it eliminates any potential advantage or disadvantage for either side and allows for equal flexibility. There are a lot of similar issues than just this one that have come with the RPG mix (XP unlocks 2nd on the list), but no matter what happens its going to be in the hands of SD to ensure that there are no loop holes in the system.
No unlocking actually does not add variation because people will always takes what suits them best at that time. You won’t ever see a heavy covert struggling to get behind the lines, you won’t ever see a light guy darting around a group of enemies like a toreador in order to hold an objective, you will always see the most popular builds.
It’s exactly that convenience that irks me, and it’s exactly that path of the least resistance that will slowly carve into the meta game and turn the game repetitive.
[QUOTE=tokamak;217086]No unlocking actually does not add variation because people will always takes what suits them best at that time. You won’t ever see a heavy covert struggling to get behind the lines, you won’t ever see a light guy darting around a group of enemies like a toreador in order to hold an objective, you will always see the most popular builds.
[/QUOTE]
So situational disaster is strategical a feature of the game. I guess I will be stacking teams with people that I can coordinate with then :(, until people finally give up.
There are so many features that I doubt it will ever get repetitive. I doubt there will be a singular right way to do something, but there might possibly be wrong ways. I just happen to feel that adjustability allows for a much more open development of strategy, and doesn’t necessitate the casual game to be played like it is a comp match in order to win, if the conditions require it.
Every situation is a disaster if you don’t know how to cope with it.
There are so many features that I doubt it will ever get repetitive.
Right just chip off a few for the heck of it.
[QUOTE=tokamak;217091]
Right just chip off a few for the heck of it.[/QUOTE]
You keep saying its getting rid of features, when really it is only making them more accessible…
The feature is contrast between players, making the bodies more accessible weakens this contrasts as people will always pick what happens to suit them.
I’m a little late with this post but I thought I would just say a few words.
I’d say when you go online for the first time the game will be populated with lightweights and and heavyweights but this will wade out as it does in all games.
Many people want to be the fastest or strongest but eventually wont have the patience to learn the skills necessary for using lights and heavys. Medium weight will be used in the end by the majority I would say as it is the safest way to go.
But for me, I can’t wait for the scout type so I can annoy everyone with some tricks that I have learned in Doom 3 multiplayer. I just hope there will be a white or purple tuxedo that you can wear as the scout. Nice! 
Anyone spotted the huge flaw between the matchmaking, the body type and the permanent upgrades ?
Let’s say I’m starting with a light body type (because I can’t try body type before testing them online and upgrading them with XP), then after a while I’m moving for medium/heavy body type (because friend are playing on stacked light body or because the light body type doesn’t fit well to my gameplay), what happens ?
I will have to create a new account, start from zero and play many games with noobs despite my experience online ? It will be both annoying to me (because I’ll play with people who have no clue of what to do and it’s really frustrating) and it will be annoying for new comer because I will kill them easily since I’m already used to the game gunfights system.
Also, I’ll have to play a lot to farm enough XP to buy enough upgrades to be able to play with my friends who don’t want to start from zero again before being able to join them without being killed in 2s by random guy because they have more upgrades than me.
I’m sure you can find a lot more example like that, and the whole game seems to be broken just because you can’t change your body type without creating a new account, I’m worried.
matchmakinng are good for the first tomes you play, but i’m pretty sure there will be options to play on whatever server you want also, ala bc2, if not, may I flew!