Why I've reached a crossroads in ET...


(tHe_eXorCist) #1

The best art imitates life. The same holds true for computer games, for they too should imitate the nearest counterpart in real life: all the big sports that we love (baseball, football, hockey, etc…) What make them lovable and playable, in short, is their checks and balances. Two game elements fundamentally unbalance limited-life play in Wolf ET: 1) Instant, full-heath revives, and 2) quick charging panzerfausts with SMGs (artillery at spawns also remains a problem, though this is largely the fault of map design).

Since both sides posses these elements, they cannot be considered a “cheat.â€? However, for the allies–coupled with limited lives and burdened with the task of offense–they create a distinct advantage for the Axis. More seriously, these elements violate the spirit and balance of RTCW. It is upon comparison that we see the flaws writ large.

Originally, the panzer was created as the antithesis of the entrenched Venom soldier because it was found that a medic/Venom pack down a corridor created an almost unstoppable pair. Given the obvious advantages of a one-shot one-kill weapon like the panzer, it was saddled with certain limitations. The most significant being the recharge time, wherein, after being fired, the Panzer-soldier had only his handgun to protect him. Other handicaps were the slow panzer ignition and along with the cumbersome and slow maneuvering. Yet, despite these disadvantages, the panzer sometimes retained too much of an advantage (as in the Tram map in RTCW).

In ET, the panzer is stripped away from the philosophy that gave it birth, like a child torn from its mother. There are few, if any limitations, yet the advantages afforded the panzer soldier have been INCREASED! Recharge time has been greatly increased, as have dexterity and even the ability to carry SMGs. Yet, one may ask themselves, “Why is this class afforded these incredible advantages�? Are there any other compelling reasons (i.e. since the “venom threat� is no more? Lastly, does it make the game more fun or challenging?

This same perversion of logic and design philosophy affects the medic class as well in ET. In RTCW, it was found that the medic should be given more life than the other classes, as well as continuously healing himself, so that he could revive his teammates. The problem was that more life equaled a greater ability to survive, which in turn made the medic a powerful attacker, instead of the supporting role he should be playing. To lessen this predilection to offense and to add more balance, RTCW designers gave the medic class a paltry amount of ammunition.

To these huge advantages of the medic class, ET increased while lessening his disadvantages. Now, the medic can remedy his bullet wounds with his own med packs at an accelerated rate while being shot. Combine this ability with his massive heath bar and the adrenalin shot and you have the perfect commando class—the exact INVERSION of design philosophy and logic that guided the original. Even in a proper supporting role, the medic class still exhibits too many unchecked advantages, such as the insta-revive to full heath syringe.

Unfortunately, these problems will get worse before they get better. Growth in ET membership along with player experience will only exacerbate the problem. Given that ET was an aborted product, the solution can only come from the gaming community itself, such as adjusting server setting and using the shrub mod. Given what has been stated earlier, the following changes would greatly add to the continued gameplay value of ET:

  1. Limiting the offensive capability of the panzer by some, or all, of the following: Slowing down the recharge rate, limiting the ammunition carried, decreasing the weapon splash damage, slowing down the projectile, making the projectile flight more realistic (i.e. adding the effect of gravity and wind), and disallowing use of SMG with panzer.

  2. Reducing the medic class to more of a supporting role, instead of the unintentional role as a commando-style super-class by some or all of the following: Limiting or disallowing personal med packs to healing yourself (only another med can do that), limiting the amount of life that can “auto recharge� (such as only 50%), increasing the amount of time it would take to revive a fallen teammate (similar to the time it takes to set dynamite as an engineer), limiting the amount of ammunition that can be carried, and limiting the use of an adrenalin needle to merely increasing adrenalin (not your ability to absorb damage).


(Englander) #2

Limited Life servers should be stopwatch and Xp shouldnt be taken over to the next round so after each round u start wth zero ,that means things like full revive wont be happening very much at all.

The people who runs the servers can change the charge rates as they see fit,if this still troubles you play ULTL :smiley:


(Wraith2k3) #3

If you run ETpro, you can also disbable XP and rewards completely.


(Rippin Kitten) #4

For the Limited Lives LAN game I’m in, we’ve followed the same ratio used in spawn times for max lives. The attackers get 3 lives for every 2 lives the defenders have. This allows the attackers to play more aggressively and avoiding the traditional “lets hide from the big bad germans” I usually see on limited lives servers.

I think the panzer is more than simply a counter to a specific strat. It allows you to take atleast one player out of the game pretty consistantly. I’m sure we’ve all played against some player who was simply unstoppable. Or dropped two engies trying to blow the objective, only to see a medic stroll by and revive them both to full health. You don’t get back up from a panzer shot. And I don’t care how good you think you are, a decent panzer player will kill you. He might get killed in the process, but atleast that one unstoppable player is out of the game and sometimes that’s all your team needs to win.

I do think the full revive is pretty annoying. But bodies are easier to limbo in ET than RTCW, so just plug a few more rounds into someone you don’t want coming back. I’ve also heard an idea that reviving people should use the charge bar. Its a pretty good idea, since you can’t run in and revive like 6 guys that way. But it does make medics have to choose between giving out health or saving some charge for a revive, and that could get annoying too.

Stopwatch on limited lives servers is a good idea too. The xp system seems to be designed with pub play in mind, so resetting after a round makes sure things don’t get out of hand.

RK


(Pamper) #5

Are you sure about that? Playing with limited lives can create an advantage for Allies- they have another way to win, aside from completing the objectives. If you can skull-out the enemy, you win even without having to build all those dangerous assault ramps and things. Of course, the offensive team would have to modify their style to take advanage of this.

That theory might work better if you just tune the defenders to have somewhat fewer lives than the attackers. (By the same ratio that their respawn time is longer, for example)

Duh. It’s the “MG42 threat” now. That’s what replaced the venom, and that’s what you need Panzers for. Panzer is also the preferred tool to kill a permant MG operator.

For an experiment, try to play oasis as allies without using a panzer. And for more fun, explain to the Axis you won’t use it. You will be powerless to get through the tunnel or bi-level passageway. Three MG42s will shutdown a whole team if there’s no panzers. (Allies can attempt to cope using artillary, rifle grenades, or mortar, but smart MG placement and support from other Axis will beat any of those techniques)

Now, I personally wouldn’t mind if panzer was a little weaker. I’d rather if panzer was a little less accurate at long ranges (droop lower as it flies), so that the sniper rifle actually had a valid role in killing a distance MG operator. Today, a panzerfaust is a better grenade than a grenade, and a better sniper than a sniper. The only thing its not good for is tank-killing.

  1. Reducing the medic class to more of a supporting role, instead of the unintentional role as a commando-style super-class by some or all of the following:

I’m sure that was fully intentional. Maybe it was an accidental creation of the original RTCW design, but once it was in there they kept it for a reason- they liked it. The Enemy Terriitory game designers had a further chance to make changes if they wanted, but didn’t.

I believe medic is a great class, but there still aren’t enough players choosing it. The game is fun right now, even if you think it’s silly that medics rule CQB.

If someone wanted some other class to be better than a medic at short range gunfighting, then new weapons should be allowed for the soldiers, to replace his SMG choices. For example, the Sturmwgehr 44 and Browning Automatic Rifle could be created as a supercharged SMGs with more damage, accuracy, and clip size. (Soldiers should be allowed to pick up normal SMGs if they want, but the default weapon for spawning should be something better)


(Pamper) #6

It’d be worse than that- he’d have to choose between healing HIMSELF, and reviving YOU.

Currently, many people whine about “rambo medics”, but that’s really a myth, or a sign of a dumb medic player. Even if a player only wants to shoot enemies and have mega-hitpoints, he may as well revive teammates. It doesn’t use any charge bar, so why not poke at every opportunity?

Doing that poking gives him bunches of medic XP, bringing him to level 4, and a critical change: for once, the medic has a use for charge bar aside from dropping packs. A rambo-oriented player can now protect himself with adrenalin, instead of healing you. Fortunately, by that time he also has full revive, so he can TK/revive and heal teammates without needing powerbar. Once again, the player has no real tradeoff between helping himself and others- he can do both.

But if the game is altered so that a medic needs to use the same, limited resource to heal himself and others, that creates a painful tradeoff. There will be many more arguments and complaints that a greedy medic made the wrong choice.


(Sick Boy) #7

Every class, every weapon is ‘unbeatable’ when played to perfection, why do we still have these threads ? And if you play stopwatch or objective instead of campaign (or even worse: 6-10 map campaign!) you don’t have any problem with adrenaline meds/quickfire panzers/artillery spammers/…

And what the hell is that ‘venom threat’ ? This was ironic, right? NOBODY EVER used the venom in RTCW. Unless they were bored and wanted to play with another gun for a change.


(Miles Teg) #8

Duh. It’s the “MG42 threat” now. That’s what replaced the venom, and that’s what you need Panzers for. Panzer is also the preferred tool to kill a permant MG operator.

In a large majority of circumstances, I think that the rifle grenade is a better weapon for taking out MGs (whether of the emplaced, mobile or tank-mounted variety). It can be fired instantly, you have enough charge to take out a second defender (and a third, with a short interval), and on top of that you get all of the other class skills of the engineer. About the only times when I would prefer a panzerfaust are:

  • if there’s an engineer with a flak jacket manning an emplaced mg with a medic on hand to revive him. The extra damage is needed to send him to limbo (although a rifle grenade would damage the mg and give you a time window of at least a few seconds safety).
  • if there’s some sort of overhanging obstacle which gets in the way of the fire-arc of the rifle grenade (this is the 'clever mg placement). About the only times I’ve had this difficulty are dealing with the axis side MG as you emerge from the main entrance of the tunnel on fueldump, a well-positioned mg in the second water tunnels on Oasis, and an mg up on (or next to) the wooden bridge on Radar.

(Rippin Kitten) #9

Heh, the only thing I don’t like about the rifle nade is the rifle. The allied rifle is a pretty weak weapon. Atleast with the panzer I know I can get myself out of a tight jam with a well placed shot. =)

RK


(I R O N M A N) #10

tHe_eXorCist, for the most aprt I think you are on the money. Reducing the panzer’s recharge time and adding gravity to the shots would be far more realistic. As for the weapon slpash, it’s pretty realistic. Here’s an example:

My father fought in Korea and related this to me. At certain points they needed to stop a large group of enemy hiding amongst trees and brush on a far hill from hailing ammo at them. Since bazookas are fairly uncommon and few are had by any particular force in wars, the 105mm gun was used most often for this task. However when a bazooka was used for it, one would see trees and brush shaking for several yards from the point of impact. In reality, if a bazooka was fired into the living room of a 4 bedroom house, several walls would disapear. The damage to the house would be extensive.

So sure, a panzer could kill you from 5-6 yards away if there was a clear plane between you and the impact spot. Even the splash damage of a grenade could kill someone within roughly 7-10 ft. (shrapnel aside) The shockwave alone would rattle your brains and possibly either kill you or permanently turn you into a moron.

Certainly creative liscence must be used to keep games enjoyable and not overly realistic. If games were totally realistic, it would be ridiculous to have any weapons in them other than firearms.

What we see in the movies is far from realistic: guys have grenades going off 7 ft away and they get up off thier bellies and run unscathed after it goes off. In reality, if a nade went off 7-8 ft away on flat ground, you would be deaf for hours (or permanently) and if you lived, you would need a little time to get your sences together, if you were ever able to at all, that is.


(amazinglarry) #11

Ugh… just what I look for in VIDEO GAMES… REALISM…

I can’t be the only one who thinks the game is fine just the way it is… who can accept the fact that sometimes you will be camped… you will have panzer whores… you will have artillery spammers… you will have rambo medics…

Is life that tragic that one can’t just deal with it and find a way around it? I mean sure it can get frustrating but it’s really not that big of a deal. This entire game is based on a paper rock scissors format like I stated in a previous thread. i.e. there is NO one way to complete an objective, get out of a situation, etc…

Just find it!


(I R O N M A N) #12

WTF are you talking about here???


(amazinglarry) #13

[quote=“I R O N M A N”]

WTF are you talking about here???[/quote]

I’m talking about the original post… the topic… this thread…

I quoted you, and gave my brief response… then moved on. Thus the new paragraph.


(Agrado) #14

Oh my god! This is what has happened to most of the players on public servers! The mystery is finally solved!


(Agrado) #15

Umm, 1-on-1 a good SMG player will kill a panzer player every time. With a few headshots the SMG will kill the panzer before it fires.


(kurosawa Ai) #16

So to summarize your complaints about balance in ET: Panzerfausts are overly powerful weapons, and medics are overly health-y.

The solution: shoot medics with Panzerfausts.

Thus, balance is restored to the universe, and all is well. Huzzah!


(Doodie) #17

Heh - nice one kurosawa.
And while we’re on the subject on rambo medics…
Last night i played on a UK server where a pair of fieldop and medic (both maxed out on upgrades) spawnr*****d the allies, healing and reloading each other. Very nasty work and a deadly combination


(amazinglarry) #18

Umm, 1-on-1 a good SMG player will kill a panzer player every time. With a few headshots the SMG will kill the panzer before it fires.[/quote]

Hmmm… so I guess that means I’m not a good player. I score upwards of over 50 headshots a round (unless the round ends in 2 seconds) but I won’t kill a panzer EVERY TIME like you suggest a good player should.

I guess I’ll never be good :frowning:


(Agrado) #19

Heh. I didn’t say it in capital underlines :wink: Maybe I exaggerated a little, but the point stands that panzer vs SMG is not a foregone conclusion.


(amazinglarry) #20

hahah, you’re right. I was just tryin to emphasize it a bit more. However I do agree, it most certainly is not a foregone conclusion… it just won’t happen every single time. :drink: