Why I'm probably out

(Sun_Sheng) #21

[QUOTE=Kendle;512208]stuff …
actually for me there’s another big deal-breaker that I don’t seem to be able to get past (or accept that I should).

Class-less Objectives and Proficiencies.

…more stuff[/QUOTE]

Agree with everything but especially this bit. Also, sad to see you go m8. Keep in touch and don’t forget that checking in part. Tbh, when I finally got my beta key and access here, seeing the likes of yourself gave me a lot of hope for the future of the game and that after years in the wilderness, I was finally back onto something good. This is a bit like watching Ronaldo go to Real :frowning:

(Kendle) #22

Yes, that’s another consequence of classless objectives.

For me classless has lots of problems :-

  • Anyone can do it, so I’ll let “someone else” have a go while I get on and frag / camp / work on my K/D.
  • Anyone can do it, so as a support class (Medic) who do I support?
  • Anyone can do it, but only 1 class in 5 can do it well, so there’s an 80% chance whoever’s doing it is not very good at it.

I read this thread by Inferno this morning :-

http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/41793-Integrating-the-Doc-Run-into-all-Objs

And no disrespect to Inferno, for whom I have the greatest respect, but my heart just sank. Are we really proposing different proficiencies per Merc type per objective type? With 5 Merc types and 4 objective types that’s 20 combinations. How the hell are you going to communicate that to anyone? When 3 Mercs of different types arrive at an objective what are they going to do, have a committee meeting to discuss which Merc is best suited for this objective on this map in these circumstances against this opposition?

Of course not. The guy who gets there first is going to do it, regardless of whether he’s best suited, or else he won’t, because he knows anyone else can do it instead.

Class based objectives neatly solve these issues :-

  • Something needs repairing? Call for an Engineer, be an Engineer. You’ll feel all warm and fluffy from being wanted and appreciated.
  • Want to help out? Be a Medic, follow that guy, cos he’s going to do something useful (because only he can).
  • Rest assured, whoever’s doing whatever it is has all the right tools to do it, because no-one else has the tools at all.

As I said, I do appreciate the reasoning behind classless objectives, having played many non-objective games (particularly DOD which is area control) I appreciate the benefit of each member of the team being as capable as anyone else of achieving the end result. But whilst the idea may have merit on paper, the reality is somewhat different, it just doesn’t work in practise, not in a game like this which involves stopping, pressing your “use” key, and switching to some tool or other for an extended period of time. Who’s going to risk it, let someone else get their head shot off, it’s not your responsibility when it’s everyone’s responsibility. It’s a race to the bottom because no-one is putting themselves out there and saying “this is what I’m going to do for the team, what are you going to do?”

(sorry for replying to my own leaving thread, I do care, I just don’t see it happening for DB as things stand)

(INF3RN0) #23

Don’t think you read my post correctly… give er another go.

(Glottis-3D) #24

[QUOTE=Kendle;512276]Yes, that’s another consequence of classless objectives.

For me classless has lots of problems :-

  • Anyone can do it, so I’ll let “someone else” have a go while I get on and frag / camp / work on my K/D.
  • Anyone can do it, so as a support class (Medic) who do I support?
  • Anyone can do it, but only 1 class in 5 can do it well, so there’s an 80% chance whoever’s doing it is not very good at it.

I read this thread by Inferno this morning :-

http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/41793-Integrating-the-Doc-Run-into-all-Objs

And no disrespect to Inferno, for whom I have the greatest respect, but my heart just sank. Are we really proposing different proficiencies per Merc type per objective type? With 5 Merc types and 4 objective types that’s 20 combinations. How the hell are you going to communicate that to anyone? When 3 Mercs of different types arrive at an objective what are they going to do, have a committee meeting to discuss which Merc is best suited for this objective on this map in these circumstances against this opposition?

Of course not. The guy who gets there first is going to do it, regardless of whether he’s best suited, or else he won’t, because he knows anyone else can do it instead.

Class based objectives neatly solve these issues :-

  • Something needs repairing? Call for an Engineer, be an Engineer. You’ll feel all warm and fluffy from being wanted and appreciated.
  • Want to help out? Be a Medic, follow that guy, cos he’s going to do something useful (because only he can).
  • Rest assured, whoever’s doing whatever it is has all the right tools to do it, because no-one else has the tools at all.

As I said, I do appreciate the reasoning behind classless objectives, having played many non-objective games (particularly DOD which is area control) I appreciate the benefit of each member of the team being as capable as anyone else of achieving the end result. But whilst the idea may have merit on paper, the reality is somewhat different, it just doesn’t work in practise, not in a game like this which involves stopping, pressing your “use” key, and switching to some tool or other for an extended period of time. Who’s going to risk it, let someone else get their head shot off, it’s not your responsibility when it’s everyone’s responsibility. It’s a race to the bottom because no-one is putting themselves out there and saying “this is what I’m going to do for the team, what are you going to do?”

(sorry for replying to my own leaving thread, I do care, I just don’t see it happening for DB as things stand)[/QUOTE]
here, read my old thread:
http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/41011-Suggestion-Double-class-system-Gametype
whats your opinion on that?

(Anti) #25

[QUOTE=potty200;512254]How many posts/topics has pixel made? Out of those, how many did SD take on board?
[/QUOTE]

Saying things is easy, doing them quickly is hard. We agree with a lot of what Pixel says, but there is no studio on this planet that could keep up with his rate of suggestions :slight_smile:

The feedback gets read, we agree with much of it, we plan to address it. Unfortunately we’re a pretty small development team so these things take a long time to do. That’s the cut and thrust of it. If you were to go back through the last 1+ year of posts on this forum and you would see a lot of the feedback has been acted on already.

(tokamak) #26

Even though they say otherwise people would rip their own hair off if they had to play one of the earlier builds again. There’s some serious nostalgic factor skewing our perception of how the game used to be.

(potty200) #27

Bull. I prefer class based objectives - It made the game dynamics far better. Nades for all also meant you couldn’t camp the same spot over and over. I would rather put up with over powered knife to the face than some of the current issues. There is a reason some of us left and it was simply because the game was heading in a direction which we was told it wouldn’t (After nexon)

(tokamak) #28

Those are design decisions rather than flaws. They can be turned on and off by the flick of a switch. Not having grenades and class objectives gives more meaningful results on how the different mercs interact with each other. Games won 't be lost because someone forgot to bring an engineer and grenades can finally be tested as a part of a specific niche (fragger and nader) rather than a blanket ability.

Besides, bringing back class-objectives and grenades really wouldn’t magically fix the game. You’d still have a game that looks very much the same as it does now (apart from the testing being less useful). They’re just a crutch that may make an incomplete game more enjoyable. Then we’ll find a set of other minor issues to write a heartfelt goodbye letter about and we’re back to square one.

(Kendle) #29

Even if that were true (and I’m not commenting on whether it is or it isn’t), that’s not the reason given for removing 'nades and going class-less, as far as I recall. These changes are permanent. And they’re bad. IMHO. :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #30

It’s easy criticising stuff without offering a viable alternative. The only way your suggestion works is to have some dressed down ET clone.

Having compulsory classes and generic abilities t means that there’s no real way of developing a large and diverse range of mercs for this game. It just stops any expansion of the game’s content before it can even start.

And you might say ‘yeah well let’s just have the ET clone’ but that is a dead end. Both creatively and financially. The appeal of an F2P game like this is that it can grow at a constant rate into something huge. And to keep that space to grow we’ll have to do away with couple of traditions.

At the same time, the grenades and classless objectives only create an incredibly narrow lack that can easily be fixed through other routes.

Class-objectives are not the only way to make a meaningful difference between classes. Firstly it’s binary, there’s the objective classes and the rest. Secondly, it’s superficial, it’s nothing but ‘that thing that class x does near an objective’.

Classes need to be different. Mercs have to be much more unique and diverse in the assets they bring to the battlefield. Preferably in entirely new ways than varying modes of dishing out lethal force.

The irony is just that, in order to do this, classeless objectives are more an obstacle than a boon in this goal.

(Kendle) #31

I’m not disagreeing with you tokamak (for once), I’m just pointing out that the reason given (by SD) for going class-less is not the reason you gave (to test Merc diversity). If it were just to test that would imply we’re going back to class specific at some point. I’m not aware that we are.

And I’m not advocating making an ET clone either, but not all change is good, and sometimes basing something new on tried and tested mechanics is the better option.

I actually think Glottis is onto something he’s mentioned a few times … instead of having a limited set of objective types and letting every Merc do them but not in the same way, why not just have more objective types?

ET maintained RTCW’s class specific objectives, but it enhanced the game by adding new ones. RTCW didn’t have build-able objectives, and it didn’t have command posts, but you’d struggle to find an ex-RTCW player who thinks these were bad additions to the game.

(tokamak) #32

Yeah I like that solution. What helps with that is to separate side objectives from main objectives. Make main objectives classless and make side-objectives highly dependant on the class.

The main objectives can just be formality compared to having a map filled with countless points of interests that each merc can manipulate in their own way.If that were the case then it wouldn’t matter if the main objectives are classless, as long as all the side objectives are indeed merc-dependent.

That way you eliminate the possibility of teams being unable to complete a match. It’s not a disaster if a team is entirely unable to complete certain side objectives because they lack the right mercs. In fact that could be a nice strategy. Opponents would have to quickly spot what mercs the other team is using and that way they can start ruling out certain possibilities. There may even be tricks of keeping certain mercs hidden to lure the others in a false sense of safety.

But yeah, all of that can be done if the game was centred around the side objectives rather than the main. It’s much like sex really.

(Glottis-3D) #33

[QUOTE=tokamak;512329]Yeah I like that solution. What helps with that is to separate side objectives from main objectives. Make main objectives classless and make side-objectives highly dependant on the class.

The main objectives can just be formality compared to having a map filled with countless points of interests that each merc can manipulate in their own way.If that were the case then it wouldn’t matter if the main objectives are classless, as long as all the side objectives are indeed merc-dependent.

That way you eliminate the possibility of teams being unable to complete a match. It’s not a disaster if a team is entirely unable to complete certain side objectives because they lack the right mercs. In fact that could be a nice strategy. Opponents would have to quickly spot what mercs the other team is using and that way they can start ruling out certain possibilities. There may even be tricks of keeping certain mercs hidden to lure the others in a false sense of safety.

But yeah, all of that can be done if the game was centred around the side objectives rather than the main. It’s much like sex really.[/QUOTE]

i also agree that this sounds tasty. Inferno suggested this quite along ago.
Engies will be able to open route A with its advantages and disadvantages.
Snipers will be able to open route B or a very profitable high ground.
etc.

this will bring diversity for lots of merc/class combinations out there.

what i am still disagree to agree is that the risk of letting your engie die (or not killing/gibbing the enemy egnie) can be replaced with something equivalent in the excitement.

(BomBaKlaK) #34

Kill or protect the objective class is the main meta game in a class based objective game.
And I miss nades …

So yes only with this 2 thing I had more fun in the previous alpha than it is now.

(Hundopercent) #35

[QUOTE=stealth6;512210]
//youtu.be/rY0WxgSXdEE

This alpha / beta has been a wild ride so far. This is the first game I’ve followed since the start, do things always go this way with the community or is this exceptional?[/QUOTE]

Exceptional but not the only one. Rust is in the same situation with their new iteration of the game that is awful.

(Kendle) #36

Something which almost (to the point of never) happened on RTCW pubs, and which of course absolutely never happened (at all, ever) in matches. If this is the reason for class-less it’s a damn stupid one.

(warbie) #37

This is what confuses me. There are obvious attempts at taking what worked from previous games and marrying them with new content - you just have to look at the released footage. It pretty much screams, ‘hey ET fans, check this out. It’s ET, but it’s going to have loads of new stuff too’. And that all makes great sense. What’s frustrating is the key aspects that made ET (and RTCW) work aren’t present - and without a reason why.

We all want teamplay and mercs working together, yet the maps and spawn times don’t encourage this at all. Infact they do the opposite. It’s impossible not to sound like a broken record here. ALL the games of this type worked best when teams were together. That’s the point of all these skills, right? Working together with the people around you. In RTCW and ET spawn times put people together and the maps funnelled them to objectives/choke points. The results were two teams colliding at clear, predicatable front lines, with plenty of space to allow for teamplay to happen. In DB you have constant streams of people running towards vague front lines down various, often narrow, routes, and it plays out like TDM. This isn’t a minor difference.

So for the nth time. How many times while playing DB have you been in position, defending an objective/choke point, with team mates all arounnd you, waiting for the enemy to come charging in? And on the flip side. How many times have you been running forward, team mates all around you, and trying to push through a defense on mass?

(Szakalot) #38

[QUOTE=Kendle;512276] Who’s going to risk it, let someone else get their head shot off, it’s not your responsibility when it’s everyone’s responsibility. It’s a race to the bottom because no-one is putting themselves out there and saying “this is what I’m going to do for the team, what are you going to do?”
[/QUOTE]

I really liked the idea of every person being able to d the objectives, but this pretty much nailed it for the opposing argument.

(Glottis-3D) #39

some brainstorming:

how about making a team-ability 'make ‘dem objects!’ with a big cooldown and a mediocre-speed through all the classes except for current obj class.

so that if you are a medic and you are a last resort to disarm you can do it. but if you fail and get killed, then only engie can save you because next time anyone can disarm will be in 1 minute.

sort of obj-tool, but without a tool.

so its almost like a help-up ability but with cooldown and with objects. the sense, that this cannot be spammed will hopefully sober-up some teamwork. because now non-engies will have to be more carefull with object-making

(rookie1) #40

my brainstorming :
If you’re a Medic and try to disarmed a c4 .It will blow you in the Face ! it’s not your Job Dude ! :tongue:(jk)