Splash DamageBlogCommunity Question: Create a Class

Splash Damage Blog

Community Question: Create a Class

Community, many team-based multiplayer games, including Splash Damage's own, feature character classes of some sort. Be it Medics that keep people alive, Engineers throwing turrets and mines everywhere, Field Ops calling in artillery strikes, or Operatives disguising themselves as the enemy, there's a combat role for a multitude of play styles.

So is there room for anything else? That's the topic of this week's Community Question, where you have free reign to invent a few classes of your own:

If you could add a character class/combat role, what would it be?

Post your suggestions in this week's Community Question thread. Keep in mind what they might bring to the battlefield and what play styles they'd be suitable for. We look forward to your replies!

242 Comments

I'd prefer enhancing the classical 5. Restoring some of the forgotten abilities from the ancient times... of Wolf:ET, like shooting when in disguise until noticed, land mines(2 types of mines shall do the job, why not? Spotting them would be useful again, stoping on them would be the chance in the critical situation... that was fun) and so on... but not too far. Where I see the place for more new possibilities is the map: side objectives, terrain shape, buildings, bridges, water pomps. :) Want some more? How about new ways of doing things that would require more than one class cooperating on them. Just not to get artificial here... For example a flyer drone might have a thirdEye on it... or maybe it's a bit too broad cooperation... I hope you get the idea - mechanics instead of "3 engineers inside Trojan and its HP += 150". In other words - Keep it simple, and keep maps being the right place to use a good bunch of different tactics... the more possibilities, the more creativity is welcome, the longer we will see something new in your product - the better fun will be! :)
Posted on 9 November, 2012 - 19:44
Field ops needs to be redefined as a class that supports the efficacy of the rest of the team. I wrote a large post on this a while ago. In ETQW the Field Ops is too much about gigantic fireworks and not enough about being the backbone of the team. I'm blacking out on what my old ideas were, I'll have to look back in what I said back then.
Posted on 9 November, 2012 - 19:52
After playing NS2 be interesting to see how a commander would work in an ET style game.
Posted on 9 November, 2012 - 19:54
The elements sound amazing. But it would be even better if we could find a way where everyone could contribute to the overall plan and infrastructure of the team. If next to the usual unlock trees we can also have a 'meta' tree per player where they can contribute resources and building space and whatever to the player(s) in charge of the organisation then there's a lot of flexibility between a unified team and a bunch of individualist. No wrong or right way. This is what happens in Dawn of War2: You can capture energy points across the map. The energy points themselves don't do a lot once captured. However, you can chose to buy generators for these points so they start generating energy which allows you to buy the more interesting toys. The thing is, the energy generated is shared among the entire team. Good practice is to keep things fair and let everyone chip in their share of resources so everyone invests the same from the generated energy. However, that's just an ideal setting. In a team of 3 players, not everyone always has the means to provide for the rest. A player that just suffered a horrible loss, or a player that needs to focus on a crucial fight in the map would better spent his resources on keeping his army strong rather than investing for a long term technology development. This means that within the entire team, all players constantly have to keep an eye on each other's priorities. Last match I took a defending role, my army remained intact and I didn't have to invest in replenishing the squad's numbers. This allowed me to spent my resources on the energy generation, that way I indirectly contributed to the rest of my team who now had a whole lot more resources and means to take a more offending role. A similar thing could be done with a shooter. And having a class specialised in directing these resource streams would be awesome. More players could meddle into this, if you make them pay their own resources for whatever decisions they take there wouldn't be a lot of conflict in leadership. People who care about this layer of strategy can be a shareholder while a player who just wants to focus on fighting or doing objectives can invest in just himself.
Posted on 9 November, 2012 - 20:24
I would just keep the 5 classes as they were perfect in ETQW. I mean I wouldn't mind some minor changes within the classes itself, but no need to go for 6 or 4 classes.
Posted on 9 November, 2012 - 21:05
Some class(es) not shared on both teams. Like what? Couple examples not meant to be taken as a whole: [LIST] [*]Melee focused soldier versus standard heavy weapons. [*]Wall climbing snipernoobs versus jetpack* snipernoobs. [*]Commander on one faction. [*]Field Ops offensive support versus Smoke, Riot Shield or similar defensive support. [/LIST] [SIZE=1] *Seeing as this is a game, not real life, a jet pack should be something that fires one up and forward very forcefully and for a very short time.[/SIZE]
Posted on 9 November, 2012 - 21:26
Tactical smoke strikes, white phosphorus strikes, move supply crate drop to field ops. Decoy vehicles and deployables, decoy fire (like in CS GO but bigger) and a way to influence the team top-down (as in hierarchy not as in RTS mode). A 'top-down' move could be selecting a player on the map and giving him a temporarily an increase in the buffs given to him. So that way a medic health pack doesn't heal 100% but but 120% increasing his max hp once. All kinds of things that make an important player stand out and make it easier for the rest of the team to support him with their own stuff. @Biosnark, yes bring asymmetry back.
Posted on 9 November, 2012 - 21:28
The 5-Star General Class. Does **** all for everybody else but drinks cognac and bangs nurses whenever he can. Supply Sergeant. Sits on a big cache of weapons and ammo but doesn't want to give it out because then he'd have to request more and the equipment might get broken. And who wants to do that... But seriously. -If you add a commander make sure a bad commander can't screw the game up for everyone else. Personally I think this is a **** game mechanic except for clan play. -The question I would be asking is how to make "hacking" for the covert ops class more fun. And less of a zerg rush. Maybe this should be asked for engineers building stuff (ie bridges) too. Yay, Friday night.
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 03:04
If you add the commander, make sure to get new audience :D. Don't get me wrong - I want a shooter game. I don't want Everything-In-One game, where instead of ETQW style of fast, VOIP-based, shared and dynamic management, where everyone is welcome to contribute, we would get some ancient idea of one commander... I totally don't get why ppl shall HAVE to take part in someone else's idea if they just don't believe it. I would not play that game. Simple as that.
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 07:32
Cool question badman :wink: I would say the fieldops needs a bit of fine tuning for indoor play. Biosnark mentioned a GDF version of a tac shield in another thread, that protects against explosions/spam only. However I would also give it a health bonus ability on revives - if the fieldops lays a tac shield on a incapped team-mate, instead of a half revive they receive a regenerated 3/4 revive. Think of it like a nurse role /cough Another approach - the engie, medic and fieldops work together to create an indoor medcrate in a modular fashion. Medic drops crate supplies, which then allows the engie to build a medic crate. Fieldops drops crate supplies, which then allows the engie to upgrade the existing medic crate with ammo (and vice-versa). Since the balancer in etqw is green smoke which tells the enemy whats up, have the crate shown clearly on the mini-map instead (until destroyed). I would also take away the ability to regen nades from it... This spices up the engies role on attack indoors, which usually only amounts to laying offensive mines that have no impact. Teams have to decide, whether or not a static resource which frees up a medic to be more combat focused, is more important than running an extra medic.
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 07:46
-If you add a commander make sure a bad commander can't screw the game up for everyone else. Personally I think this is a **** game mechanic except for clan play.
That's why authority of the team needs to be merit based. Not one commander, but people chosing to invest their hard earned resources into having a say in the broader outline of the team's strategy.
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 12:01
Some people played too much NS2 here.... :rolleyes:
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 12:33
How dare they play a new game and get inspiration!!!
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 12:46
That's why authority of the team needs to be merit based. Not one commander, but people chosing to invest their hard earned resources into having a say in the broader outline of the team's strategy.
Natural Selection 1 had only the Human team with a commander. The alien team relied on individual resource management and individual build choices. Natural Selection 2, of course, gives both teams commanders, team resources and individual resources.
Some people played too much NS2 here.... :rolleyes:
and other people have nothing to add.
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 13:51
I've said this before, but I hope that you guys sell packaged variants of characters rather than letting us customize our own loadouts. Customization removes the key thing that makes classes feel unique...the combination of strengths and weaknesses. Such as the classic engineer who gets turrets, but is stuck with a shotgun. With Brink style customization, you end up with everyone using the same couple of weapons, and some of the more interesting abilities aren't used because they get replaced by more boring, efficient abilities. You can give the four or five basic classes for free. Then sell variants of those classes. So, Medic is free... but Poison Medic, or Tech Medic can be bought, which will give you an alternate way to play the game. Same character system as MOBAs I guess. Variants would have their own skin, their own weapons, and their own abilities. For instance, a Tech Medic might be a heavy with a chain gun and a field regen unit. A Speed Medic might be a light with an SMG and a Lazarus grenade. And my advice...don't even offer people a chance to earn variants for XP. They will just complain about the grind. Make the 4-5 basic classes slightly more competitive than all the rest (variants are for style and variety)...and then offer a discount system. The more characters you buy, the cheaper they get. They start at 7-8 dollars per character and slowly move down in price with each one you buy. That way, early adopters won't be afraid of seeing characters discounted later down the road.
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 16:08
and other people have nothing to add.
Nevertheless we all are flaming, like it would be important, whether or not Rad Soldiers for PC will have a commander class. :) Let's take it easy, idea is super-cool, as fun as ultra-realistic village simulation, it just does not fit "The Unannounced", maybe it is the title... Yet why don't you guys describe the idea in detail, so we can pick what both sides want from the game, not necessarily inside the commander class. Don't forget it's enough to ask a teammate for something - the teammate will either like the idea and will do it, or won't find it good and will not. Isn't that totally natural? We have been playing like that all these years, especially with deployables, med-crates, airstrikes, team members allocation in space, class structure of the team. Moving it all away from simple "do that" into the sea of communication between ppl builds the ETQW deepness. Loses nothing, and making game more interesting... It may get one nervous, but still - shooting at idle bots stands as an opposite... The game must be challenging. No difficulty leads to no satisfaction. To clarify - all the things, that can be achieved with the commander class, in terms of how the gameplay changes on one players decision, are available without the class "commander". Therefore unless we want to force ppl to certain decisions, normally they would make themselves, we totally don't need the commander. And whats the point - if your idea seems good to ppl who are capable of realizing it - they will do it. Where is the problem? So, what things you guys would like this "commander" class to be able to do? Set turrets? Place med-crates? Just to know what exactly we are talking about. And have a good day!
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 16:36
Field hospital surgeon. Remain at the spawn playing a succession of mini-games including: mixing dry Martinis, driving golf balls, perving at nurses and removing body parts Operation style.
...
All of this.
Some people played too much NS2 here.... :rolleyes:
Thanks for the reminder, must get back to that. Not sure you need a dedicated commander in ET though.
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 17:02
Thanks for the reminder, must get back to that. Not sure you need a dedicated commander in ET though.
There is also a commander in BF2, but it doesn't fit in the ET universe.
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 17:40
Natural Selection 1 had only the Human team with a commander. The alien team relied on individual resource management and individual build choices. Natural Selection 2, of course, gives both teams commanders, team resources and individual resources.
Yes, and what I'm saying is that it should be all individual resources, but people can then chose to use those resources for team wide stuff distributed through commander type roles. That way people can pay commander type roles while those who aren't interested can invest more into their own character.
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 17:46
Field hospital surgeon. Remain at the spawn playing a succession of mini-games including: mixing dry Martinis, driving golf balls, perving at nurses and removing body parts Operation style..
Actually changing the "Medic" for the "Nurse" class would be quite a deal. As a woman "medic" would be harder to hit(smaller body), shorter(so could run along the brick wall having head covered, for example. And to put some cost on it it would run for shorter time, and have some Machine pistol as a weapon, not the standard, full size rifle, what makes medics in ET/ETQW the ultimate self-healing soldiers, reminding rather Rambo, than any real-life medic occupation in some army... I'd prefer more specialized medic class. Nurse does the job well, and also fixes the parity problem :P. Can't wait to say "Revive me lady!" to some asshole passing by and paying no attention to his team-role ;-). Pronounce it like "milady" and it's all the way perfect ;-). Done joking, the problem is serious, and during writing this post I totally converted my own opinion - I want nurse instead of medic!
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 18:37
I would in a sense keep the 5 classes but have it that players be a specialist in a class but can pick and choose various skills or weapons from other to aid them to become the ultimate commando. So once a player has gained the top level in a particular class they get perks and the ability to use certain weapons whilst being other classes, so you could have a specialist medic who has a sniper rifle or an engineer with a flamethrower. To go on further, i would improve it by... Engineer specialists get engineering crates so instead of merely constructing set apparatus on the map they get to choose where to construct the mg nests, whereabouts the bridge gets built, look out tower, assault ramp etc Does he choose 2 road block crates at the expense of landmines? This would take the first ET to the next level instead of being just a copy. This would also enable stock maps to be able to be played in totally different ways each time, with much thought in perfecting various routes etc and increasing tactical variety. Once the engineer gets to top level they would then get transferable perks to other specialist classes such as a pliers for reconstructing damaged engineering constructions, remote bomb, sticky bombs and land mines. Those that specialize as a Medic have to themselves the usual continuous health packs and revive whilst gaining the transferable perk of First aid kit which instantly replenishes the health of a player but can only be used once then requires supply crate to restock it. That way an engineer can choose a first aid kit to take with them in place of mines etc if they want. Rename Field ops to scout and give them the ability to have a motorbike in addition to keeping the ammo crates and arty etc for themself, whilst allowing the transference to other classes of a supply airdrop flare which parachutes in ammo. I would also give the scout the sniper rifle instead of the covert op (or Spy) as they can scout the are through the scope. Rename the covert op "the spy", give them the new ability to have a decoy which alerts enemy to place on map when used. They would keep the uniform change for them self but have linguistics (the ability to communicate with the enemy in their team vsays when in a certain range of the enemy), or pickpocketing ( stealing the grenades and ammo of the enemy whilst standing behind them) and "wire" which can be attached between landmines to trigger them or for garroting, and Molotovs transferred to other classes. Soldier would gain the ability to climb with a grappling hook but this kept to them self because of his superior strength whilst getting scuba gear and heavy weapons transferred to other classes once top level is reached. So an engineer could guard and plant a dynamite under water using a scuba gear etc. or canvas his mine field with a heavy gun or become a pyromaniac using explosives and flamethrowers. There would be a certain set amount of slots or weapons that can be carried into battle and up to the player to choose what he goes with and specializes in enabling thousands of different combinations and increasing tactical dynamics of the gameplay. Like this In a sense every player can become their own unique commando, their character becomes a representative of their gameplay.
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 18:41
Actually changing the "Medic" for the "Nurse" class would be quite a deal. As a woman "medic" would be harder to hit(smaller body), shorter(so could run along the brick wall having head covered, for example. And to put some cost on it it would run for shorter time, ... Can't wait to say "Revive me lady!" to some asshole passing by and paying no attention to his team-role ;-). Pronounce it like "milady" and it's all the way perfect ;-).
Women? Are you sure you're not thinking of Dwarves? :wink: I don't think Splash Damage are prejudiced. They can make a male nurse model with some tight fitting scrubs for surgeons to ogle, if that's their thing.
Posted on 10 November, 2012 - 19:12
Dystopia has a good form of dynamic classes using three body types. Loadouts could be changed and customized in game and saved as presets. To summarize the system, Body Types: [LIST] [*]Heavies: Heavy weapons are armor, slow speed, very little class points and energy to use them. [*]Mediums: Mid range weaponry and armor, intermediate speed and mantling, lots of class points and energy. [*]Lights: Light weaponry and armor, fast speed and mantling, lots of class points and energy. [/LIST] Class points (costs for each varied and actives and passives came out of the same point pool): [LIST] [*]Active abilities (cost energy): things like med that helped the team, radar pulse that helped the team, cloaking, silent movement, various night vision or audio sensor systems and more I can't recall. [*]Passive abilities: additional energy, IFF hud (friendly fire=on), super jump, fast reload, additional ammo, and more I can't recall. [/LIST] Pair this level of class customization with weapon customization and you have a free-to-play designer's wet dream. Dystopia is/was a really creative class and objective based source mod that it seems like a lot of the class/objective junkies here overlooked. ____________________
Nevertheless we all are flaming, like it would be important, whether or not Rad Soldiers for PC will have a commander class. Let's take it easy, idea is super-cool, as fun as ultra-realistic village simulation, it just does not fit "The Unannounced", maybe it is the title...
Chris placed the suggestion within a context. Reread his post. Also, not only does a commander role exist in Rad Soldiers but it is the only role a player can play.
To clarify - all the things, that can be achieved with the commander class, in terms of how the gameplay changes on one players decision, are available without the class "commander".[excised for space]
Almost all elements are unnecessary. Without exception, all classes, weapons, objectives, maps and so on can be rolled into one.
There is also a commander in BF2, but it doesn't fit in the ET universe.
The universe involves large scale organized conflict so of course it does. However, I doubt the franchise holds any real value, even if SD could use it. I assume you're referring more to gameplay, in which vehicle play also certainly didn't seem to fit.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 01:39
Almost all elements are unnecessary. Without exception, all classes, weapons, objectives, maps and so on can be rolled into one.
Unless one cares. Make sure you're not missing a difference - in the Splash Damage model the "commander" is not able to force allocation people don't want. Do you think it's wrong approach?
The universe involves large scale organized conflict so of course it does. However, I doubt the franchise holds any real value, even if SD could use it. I assume you're referring more to gameplay, in which vehicle play also certainly didn't seem to fit.
I'd say its fairly small ;-). And about IDs - remember gothic and PiranhaBytes? See what they did having no rights to Gothic - another gothic game, with different name only. Can Splash Damage do the same? The fact we are here is the answer. Have a good day!
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 08:29
I'm trying to have an opinion here but failing :/
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 10:08
Introducing a commander role would move the game into a different direction for sure. Matches would be longer most likely as a result too as to gather resources and research upgrades and the like wouldn't be instant. Also remember we have a primary objective to complete, would be tricky to still have players focus on those objectives and the teamwork needed to complete those whilst keeping in mind the resource side of things. People seem to wrongly think that players have to obey the commander, the commander how I imagine it is a single support role, they advice the rest of the team about where to go depending on what they see on their overhead view. They can drop supplies to aid players who are struggling to get past a choke point or so. They would research new upgrades that would be available to the team to use (purchase using individual resources), what upgrades he chooses would hopefully be based on the circumstances of that given match. All this would be supplementary not mandatory, a lousy commander would just mean the team has to be more self reliant using their own resources more to get what they require. I haven't really thought about it that much as you can tell, was just to promote discussion, simply saying it doesn't fit the unannounced title we know nothing about without giving a reason isn't a great discussion. Anyway, beyond that I'm not sure what else you could possibly add, I think simply refining the existing classes would be more than adequate if the next game largely plays like previous ones.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 12:07
Have yet to get into NS2 so I can't really comment on the idea of a commander role, although from what I've seen it's a fun addititon to team MP shooters. For classes I would indeed stick to the classic 5 heavy weapons, medic, engi, fops and sniper. I reckon you could move some of the commander elements to the fieldops, as a fieldops you're pretty much a regular soldier who gets to call in fireworks at times.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 12:29
Hey Chris, hope you;re having good time on the forum!
simply saying it doesn't fit the unannounced title we know nothing about without giving a reason isn't a great discussion.
Look, you are replying for a joke, that was where it was just to remind - just in case - we are talking about the unknown game(only game) and not only because of that we shall not flame too much. ;-) Anyway though my argument was the following: The commander class provides nothing we cannot have without it. All it does is that it forces certain allocation, that was up to people before. If players will like to listen to someones advice - they will set the supply crate in expected place. If they don't want the supply on the roof though - they will not. My question is - do you want people to have nothing to say? I know it may sound offensive, though don't worry - no bad feelings are involved :).
Anyway, beyond that I'm not sure what else you could possibly add, I think simply refining the existing classes would be more than adequate if the next game largely plays like previous ones.
Agreed. light_sh4v0r Great idea! Lets distribute the commanders abilities amongst the classes, and among the players. Field ops might have fire-support abilities, medic(nurse!) would deploy supply crates... ;-)
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 12:48
Probably a bit offtopic but I think that classes are wrong implemented in a lot of games because in almost every shooter the medics plays in the frontline while it's that task of the soldier class. So they die first while it's actually a support role. In ETQW the technician is even the most powerfull class with stroyent (health+ammo+stroyup/down) this class don't need the team for supplies and can frag forever when not dieing or overheat the weapon. A commander in a FPS is useless (unless it's a "bot" high command/makron), because pub games aren't organised anyway, players just don't care about orders etc. that's my exprience with Battlefield 2. For ETQW I would take out the Field Ops, give ammo packs to Soldier and airstrike to Covert Ops, 4 classes are fine.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 12:49
Breo +1 for RamboMedic problem description. See my post about nurse class(specialized replacement for medic) somewhere above. What do you think about that alternative?
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 13:02
Rambo medics arent a problem. If you actually care about winning, you're not going to complain about someone dropping 80 kills a map. However I can definitely understand having issue with incompetent rambo medics. But then you could make that complaint about all the other classes as well.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 13:21
Rambo medics arent a problem. If you actually care about winning, you're not going to complain about someone dropping 80 kills a map. However I can definitely understand having issue with incompetent rambo medics. But then you could make that complaint about all the other classes as well.
You know, these frags are deeply connected with deaths of ppl trying to do the objective... Therefore overpowered class is not good thing not only for those, who loves only dueling, but also for those who loves only winning. Finishing this answer - mix both to get a real-life case.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 13:35
Maintaining area control aka fragging = completed objective The class one chooses to maintain area control shouldnt really matter, if the goal is to win. Thats why the whole - 'the soldier should be at the frontlines' comment is a bit silly. However most rambo medics, are actually wannabes. They pass up revive opportunities which would benefit the team more, than their ability to frag.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 13:55
:D I don't see the point of this question, you already have the 5 classes found in majority of the games, every one you should invent would be a variation of the above or a specialized class. I would start with no class, and let the player build his own by picking the abilities from a pool and create his own hybrid class, may it be engi-med, rambo-medic, sniper-ops, soldier-med-engi, comander-ops, etc. or chose from those five if he don't like to tune his own. I remember when i had a script for the most important maps of W:ET (with specific spawnpoints and enemy time), why not let me have a specific class made by me for a specific map or for my specific type of play and be able to load it by "/exec hybrid1.cfg" of "F9". Make it more hard, let's say you wont be able to build your own class until you played 50h/1Mil.xp/unlock all of them. After "50-100h/5mil.xp" you should have the idea of what type of game-play you like, or what class you like, or what type of support you like to bring to your team, and chose your own class/classes. Reward those who play your game by allowing them to tune, grind, achieve or stay within a predefine class. :D
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 14:07
How would people be able to complete objectives on day 1 of release?
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 14:24
Maintaining area control aka fragging = completed objective The class one chooses to maintain area control shouldnt really matter, if the goal is to win. Thats why the whole - 'the soldier should be at the frontlines' comment is a bit silly.
I think it should matter. In Brink it didn't matter because all the classes were very similar. It didn't matter where or what the classes where doing, as long as there was one of each then it was all okay. In ETQW, not having the right classes in the right places is a disaster while having a class in the right place at the right time means you're completely stomping all over your opponents. That's what I'd like to see. So to that extend. A rambo medic is valid, IF players commit to that before hand. The opposite of a rambo medic should be a supply medic. A medic that has far less combat potential but is much more capable at replenishing the team during down-times. A rambo medic is in the thick of the fight, keeps himself alive and secures one or two high priority revives right in the middle of combat. A supply medic is the backbone of the team. Rather than improvised quickfixes he steers the team through making sure the team goes in fully prepared and also provides them a place to fall back and replenish. A supply medic is also the guy that comes in when the fight is almost over and quickly gets everyone right back up again to have another go. We've seen that all too often in ET. And if you want to take that supply archetype even further. A medic player should be be able to go 'meta medic' and invest in meta upgrades that go team wide. Typical commander type deciscions: '+10% hp for each health pack' or '+5% max health' or '50% faster supply crate drop' or 'double supply crate duration'. When a player choses those kind of upgrades over individual upgrades then he should also get return on that investment. So if a player picks the +10% hp per health pack upgrade, then every time any player in his team receives a health pack of any medic, then he will get a score/resource reward for enabling all the medics on his team such a bonus.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 14:47
In ETQW, not having the right classes in the right places is a disaster while having a class in the right place at the right time means you're completely stomping all over your opponents.
Who decides what the right places and the right classes are? ;) You dont need to have your soldiers on the frontlines, if they can own from the back. And you dont need to have your soldiers at the back, when they can own on the frontlines. Its like telling me only engies should be aloud in the Titan. What should it matter to my team-mates if im smashing the opposing team as a covert in a Titan? The same applies to rambo medics...
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 15:37
See my post about nurse class(specialized replacement for medic) somewhere above. What do you think about that alternative?
That's what I mean with a "bot" commander like in ETQW you can request a Icarus, but a real player as commander I don't think it's a good idea at least not for the FPS genre.
Thats why the whole - 'the soldier should be at the frontlines' comment is a bit silly.
Well I mean the soldier should be the strongest class so that medics can also heal teammates etc. instead of fighting in the frontline. Ofcourse everyone can pick their class and choose to fight in the frontline but the equipment need to fit the role. I try to give a better example: what if the object class had the best equipment and the player fight in the frontline instead of doing objects? In a game with health regen it doesn't matter but a class/objective based shooter it does or else: - There's something wrong with the balance of the classes - Get rid of the specialised tasks (e.g. in Counterstrike every class can disarm a bomb)
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 16:06
- Get rid of the specialised tasks (e.g. in Counterstrike every class can disarm a bomb)
Wait, wait, wait, you want to make it possible for every class to disarm?
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 16:17
- Get rid of the specialised tasks (e.g. in Counterstrike every class can disarm a bomb)
We dont wanna Enemy territory : Counter strike :D
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 17:09
People seem to wrongly think that players have to obey the commander, the commander how I imagine it is a single support role, they advice the rest of the team about where to go depending on what they see on their overhead view. They can drop supplies to aid players who are struggling to get past a choke point or so. They would research new upgrades that would be available to the team to use (purchase using individual resources), what upgrades he chooses would hopefully be based on the circumstances of that given match. All this would be supplementary not mandatory, a lousy commander would just mean the team has to be more self reliant using their own resources more to get what they require.
I don't think the NS2-style, resource gathering commander (where you must have a commander and it's difficult to have a good game without two competent commanders) is a good fit. But what about a part-time comm? For ETQW(ish) outdoors environments I could imagine a mobile command station, bigger and slower than an MCP, providing: -- forward spawn -- radar within a radius (enhanced by cov-ops dropping repeaters behind enemy lines) -- missiles for field-ops to target within a radius (supplemented by self-deployable automated mortar or vampire) The commander could be responsible for: -- positioning the comm station -- accessing a map and relaying enemy positions -- choosing upgrade paths for campaign? -- health/weapon drops (on a timer) (medics/soldiers still have individual drops) -- kit-form deployables (vehicles/shielding/...) for engineers to build -- no drops inside, keep the infantry only segments A Command station would have some light automated defences but heavier guns would require manual use by the commander and other players. Vulnerable to enemy fire/artillery (and perhaps to disguised cov-ops hopping inside, knifing the commander and setting an auto-destruct.), loss of a comm station would mean marching a new one back to the front line. Players could jump into the comm chair to move the station or drop deployables but it would be possible to manage without a full-time commander. Or you could have a little back-and-forth between comm stations. A commander might position the station on the doorstep of an (indoor) objective to shorten the spawn distance for a rush, at the expense of managing only a couple of spawns before the enemy comm/players destroy it.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 17:16
Wait, wait, wait, you want to make it possible for every class to disarm?
We dont wanna Enemy territory : Counter strike :D
Depends on other game mechanics ofc. CS doesn't have respawns/heal/regen basicly damage/dead is permanent for one game. Also the team doesn't nessary have a particular class to win the game. It doesn't really fit the ruleset of ETQW but it was more like a example to make things clear about classes :wink:
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 17:19
Here are some ideas. I'm going to do this according to the Brink character options. (bodytype, two weapons, active abilities, and maybe passives) Medic variants: Starter Medic Medium body type Primary: Plasma-based assault rifle (accurate, but slow projectiles), Secondary: Revive gun (similar to Killzone 2...lets you revive from about 5 feet away...requires aim) Ability: Healthpacks, Ability: Health Scavenge (replenish health packs from scavenging dead medics..including your own teammates), Ability: Turret Mod (can add health pack dispenser functionality to friendly Engineer turrets) Grenades: Impact Nades (little damage, but knocks people back), Tech Medic Heavy Body type Primary: Chaingun Secondary: Double-barreled revolver Ability: Field Regen Unit Ability: Revive UAV (Has a lot of health, can be piloted around reviving.) Ability: Grenade: Defuse Grenade (Instant impact grenade that will cancel any non-friendly grenades in the radius. Used to protect defensive areas, such as field regen units, from being naded.) Scientist Light Body type Primary: Burst-fire SMG Secondary: Acid revolver (hits and then burns) Ability: Adrenaline Buff Pack Ability: Speed Boost Pack(a lot more bonus speed than in Brink.) Ability: Revive syringe (must be used up close on the body, like in Brink, but like a melee rather than an F key buff...but revives the player with 200% health and 50% speed) Grenade: Syringe Nade (Poisons and slows opponents) Rush Medic Light Body type Primary: Single Barrel shotgun (Doom style..never have to reload..but not very meaty) Secondary: Mini-mortar (small explosion radius radius) Ability: Impact Melee (Use on the ground to launch yourself into the air, to launch mortars or throw Lazarus Grenades. You can also launch twice is high if you first use the impact melee, and then use the mortar as you are coming down.) Ability: Impact Heal (Use the Impact Melee gun on a body to revive, but they get up with little health, and the body can also be pushed in the direction of the blast (to good or bad effect) Ability: Impact Push (Use Impact Melee on an enemy or a grenade to knock them back) Grenade: Lazarus Grenade Engineers variants Starter Engineer Medium Body type Primary: Shotgun (similar to the Mossington) Secondary: Repair gun Ability: 2 Medium turrets (Good balance of targeting, health, and damage) Ability: 2 Deployable shields. (Energy walls that can be used as cover...see Tribes: Ascend) Ability: 2 Phase Gates (Teleport between them) No grenades Heavy Engineer Heavy Body type Primary: Jackhammer Shotgun (Hjammerdeim) Secondary: Repair gun (slow, but can over charge) Ability: 2 Heavy Turrets (Best firepower, but limited ability to target. Can mostly only aim in the direction it is placed) Ability: Field Repair Unit (Like field regen unit, but only repairs structures) Ability: Deployable Radar Grenade: Throwable mortar (long delay decent radius) Combat Engineer Medium Body type Primary: Projectile based shotgun (bounces off surfaces) Secondary: Repair and move gun (Can be used to move turrets or other structures around.) Ability: 3 Light turrets (Deploy fast, and can be thrown about 5-10 feet. Low health and firepower) Ability: 1 Deployable shield. Grenade: Throwable sensors (Alerts team on HUD, when an enemy enters the radius) Engineer Sniper Light Body Type Primary: (Sniper rifle with sticky, explosive bullets. There is an initial damage, and then the explosive damage which can hurt other enemies nearbye the target. Can also be used on walls or something.) Secondary: Shotgun pistol Ability: Flamethrower UAV (Decent firepower, medium health, and can repair structures) Ability: 3 Sensors (to help cover his back) Ability: Assault Rifle Armory (Let's teammates pick up the best Assault Rifle in the game...generates a new rifle every minute, but doesn't start generating a new one until the previous one has been picked up.) No Grenade Soldier Variants Starter Soldier Medium Body Type Primary: Disc launcher (like a spinfuser) Secondary: Hitscan SMG Ability: Ammo Packs Ability: Scavenge Ammo (Just walk over dead bodies) Ability: Armor Packs (Armor can be repaired by repair guns or field repair units) Ability: Turret Mod (Add ammo dispensers onto friendly turrets...limited replenishment) Grenade: Standard grenade Artillery Specialist Heavy Body Type Primary: Grenade Launcher Secondary: Short range disc launcher Ability: Deployable Ammo Dispenser (Full replenishment) Ability: Deployable Armor Gate (Players walk through to get extra armor) Ability: Firepower Turret Mod (adds extra firepower to friendly turrets) Grenade: Extra Strength Grenade Base Destroyer Medium Body Type Primary: Sticky Nade Launcher (Extra damage vs enemy structures) Secondary: Projectile SMG with ricochet bullets Passive: Starting armor Passive: Extra speed Ability: Explosives (Detonate in 15 seconds unless defused. Can be dropped in a base area and take out everything in its radius if no one is around to defuse it.) Grenade: Napalm Operative Variants (There is a generator near the enemies spawn, which can be shutdown by any operative variant. It turns off all enemy electronic devices and structures...but doesn't take long for the enemy team to reboot it.) Starter Operative Light Body Type Primary: SMG (best SMG in the game) Secondary: Silenced pistol Ability: 2 Deployable Mines Ability: Disguise (Disguise using dead bodies. Keep disguise until you take damage (even after killing someone). Can go through enemy phase gates when disguised. Ability: Turn any enemy structure into a proximity mine. Ability: Turret mod (Mod friendly turrets to spot enemy operatives and remove their cover) Grenade: Caltrops Tech Operative Heavy Body Type Primary: Heavy Plasma Crossbow (Penetrates targets) Secondary: Heavy Sniper Rifle (Highest damage weapon) Ability: Large Radius Sapper (Kills structures in a large radius, but the sapper itself is very big and hard to hide.) Ability: Generator Lock (If he manages to get into the enemy team's generator, he can place the lock on it, which makes the enemy team spend more time to turn back on their power) Ability: Corpse Mines. (He gets a bunch, but can only be placed on dead bodies.) Grenade: Heavy Duty EMP Bio Operative Medium Body Type Primary: Bio Gun (Shoots an acidic looking blob. Projectile has an arc. Hold down the trigger to charge for bigger blobs. Slows down enemies as well as causing damage. Larger blobs have decent splash damage) Secondary: Electricity Gun (Beam weapon with less than 10 ft range.) Takes down shields fast. Ability: Disguise (This one removes itself once you fire) Ability: 2 Corrosive Mines (Similar to Napalm mines in Brink) Ability: Enemy Turret Hack Grenade: Impact EMP I'll think of some more later, probably. Ideally, there is synergy, not just between different class types, but between the variants as well. A combat engineer can move a heavy engineers big turrets around, for instance.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 18:25
Well I mean the soldier should be the strongest class so that medics can also heal teammates
It is the strongest class... but what it gains in power, it loses in efficiency.
Ofcourse everyone can pick their class and choose to fight in the frontline but the equipment need to fit the role. I try to give a better example: what if the object class had the best equipment and the player fight in the frontline instead of doing objects?
Rambo Medic is the role, therefore they have the proper equipment.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 18:25
Rambo Medic is overpowered. 1 player behind enemy lines is 1 player behind enemy lines, not 10 players, as he will heal himself after every duel and will be "new" again. Thats the other approach to that, less rambo-ism more teamplay needed. I don't mean nurse have to be totally weak, it would just have less firepower - and greater chance to survive shooting with its smaller hitBoxes - as it is called "medic"/"nurse". And to use certain argument - why not pick a soldier, if the medic is nearby anyway? ;-) If team is not sticking together - why attacking constructor is left against overpowered medic-defender? It's ok if the enemy get some cover fire and medpacks from other ppl, but if defender needs no teammates, while attacker does strongly - it's not balanced until the medic is really weaker. He can withstand longer shooting refilling he's HP when in cover for a second, so it shall at least do less damage. Back to the commander and multiple classes - simplicity is a key. The game should be clear as possible, intuitive, and what should be complicated and demanding is the map. Tools should be natural in use. Classes shall be what they seems to be on the first look. Also when we see incoming soldier, fieldops etc - we better know what to expect. 10 types of medic, 20 of soldier, 50 CvOps... and no sniper rifle... :D Central decision vs teamplay and individual decisions + communication... Unnecessary complication is not the way to go... Forcing players - because we will have to have some limits of supply crates and turrets, so if commander will have a turret - someone else will not have it. It's not adding anything, it's taxing peoples freedom and then centrally making the decision about the previously private resources. No way around, printing money is still more stable than a printed turret. And in the game the crises would come immediately, as teams would have too many turrets and crates. In other words - we have to chose between these two concepts, there is no third way, as the third way leads to the commanderism(or lack of it, as the commander have no more decision power about the next patch for the game, also commander now, 10 minutes later medic without supply crate - what to choose...). Freedom on Earth! or SSS! No "I don't care" between. You will care, as they will finally take your rocket artillery away from you! :D Either you will be left with not enough, or the commander will have not enough toys. Have a great day everyone - no matter what type of games you play!
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 19:54
Here are some ideas. I'm going to do this according to the Brink character options. ...
Stopped reading after Brink. I don't think rambo medics are the problem, but rambo turrets. Engieeners can deploy them so easy and they will just shoot and shoot and shoot! I don't like their inner aimbot either, you got no chance at all against them.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 20:09
Stopped reading after Brink.
Just like in cartoon...
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 20:10
Rambo Medic is the role
Zomg :eek: Humate I'll give up trying to explain that this shouldn't be the intention of this class. Maybe they should give Sly medpacks in Rambo 5? :D
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 20:26
And i'll give up explaining that youre in no position to state what a player's intention should be.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 20:55
Stopped reading after Brink.
I just meant I was brainstorming class variants around the 2 weapon, bodytype, and 3 active abilities that Brink had. Because I have no idea what the possibilities of character classes will be, I just decided to think in the structure of their previous game. But I was also thinking about accurate guns and some arena style weapons... I specifically tried to avoid F key buffing...(toss out packs instead.)
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 21:15
Tangoliber you're definitely thinking the right way. What we need is talent trees like in WoW now. Not as absolute as those, instead the talent trees define how easy it is to get certain upgrades (by laying down a predefined path towards the upgrades, deviating is possible but more costly.)
Who decides what the right places and the right classes are? ;).
Whoever decides that, it doesn't change the difference between how consequential the class set up in each game is.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 21:17
Whoever decides that, it doesn't change the difference between how consequential the class set up in each game is.
Its irrelevant . Its doesnt change the fact the people can and will play the game the way they see fit.
Posted on 11 November, 2012 - 21:24
Given that I usually play a tech, I have no personal problem with the mechanics but the fact that they are the most effective combat class is a class system design failing. Rambo medics have a convolution of modern fps autoregen. I don't think the ideal solution is to give everyone autoregen like in Brink but have no other effective solution in mind other than limiting self heal effectiveness or limiting ammo (etqw medic/tech could both replenish ammo, themselves). Alternatively, the "soldier" should more clearly inhabit the "support" heavy weapons specialist or demolitions role. As others have noted, the fops is not a very defined role. I know SD is well aware of that, however, given Brink. This is the role I think could be given "commander" support functions and squad spawn parachute beacons(/spawn hosts?) or just removed.
in the FPS/RTS hybrid model the "commander" is not able to force allocation people don't want.
Fixed.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 13:25
Its irrelevant . Its doesnt change the fact the people can and will play the game the way they see fit.
It is relevant. Take your covert in a titan example. If you're going to stay in the titan for the full game then you want be a medic and NOT a covert ops and CERTAINLY not a field ops. A medic adds max hp, a covert is neutral and being a field ops adds cooldowns on the artillery of other field ops. Yes, everyone is free to play the game however poorly they like. But that still means that for some games your class matters a whole lot more than others.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 17:15
Most players that are commenting on playstyles they disagree with are throwing rocks in glass houses. Secondly its none of anyones business what playstyle is used, regardless of max hp or not. Particularly when that player they are complaining about is the only reason they have a chance of winning. eg rambo medic with 85 kills.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 18:03
Some playstyles are just objectively better and I just pointed it out, titan hogging is fine, but titan hogging while adding to a team and not taking away from other players is better. And this whole discussion is sidetracking my point about how much a class matters in the game. Even if every playstyle is equally valid, then there's still the degree in how much your choice of class weighs. In ETQW it matters a lot, in Brink it doesn't matter that much. As far as certain playstyles, I definitely want to see the game facilitate to sub-classes within each class. A rambo medic is great and a support medic is also awesome, if players want to commit to one of these by specialising through upgrades it's even better.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 18:08
Then perhaps you might want to read further up and realise the discussion is about rambo medics, and not class distribution.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 18:17
A rambo medic was just an example of a specialisation within the class. That's the context of the discussion. Once the fields ops is more fleshed out there's not much need for a sixth class. Further deepening out the niches within each class should be the next step. A covert ops could be a saboteur, an assassin, and a crowd controller. Three very different roles which can be turned into three talent trees like in WoW.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 18:22
before making suggestions i would like to remind that everyone in server is free to choose his class. so, overpowered classes would become the choice of everyone. therefore ruinning the game. PS: hope next community question will be "new game or new maps for etqw ?"
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 19:10
before making suggestions i would like to remind that everyone in server is free to choose his class. so, overpowered classes would become the choice of everyone. therefore ruinning the game. PS: hope next community question will be "new game or new maps for etqw ?"
That's why I often decide to switch to medic from what I want to play as. When I say "what I want to play" it means - from the class that appears to me much more at the moment... yet it has not enough combat-power to stand against RamboMedic. There was an argument, that it's free choice so classes don't have to be balanced, well - that kills what it sits on... About "Fixed" from BioSnark: I totally disagree, and you can read why in the same post you quoted part of, in the argumentation part of it. To cut long story short: There is no way to keep thing balanced, I assume having more or having less turrets per team means something in terms of balance, when we firstly got it then we add a commander capable of setting a - example - turret, IF you won't take the decision away from someone else, assuming commander have wider array of possible actions. That is the argument. Have a good day!
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 20:18
There was an argument, that it's free choice so classes don't have to be balanced, well - that kills what it sits on...
The comment was that players dont have a leg to stand on complaining about rambo medics on their own team, when they are doing most of the work to help the team win. Balance is another issue altogether. If the medic was nerfed all one would need to do is prioritise the medic on every engagement, and every push would be held pretty easily. The medic needs to be able to hold its own in combat, or the whole thing collapses.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 21:00
It should go further than that. A player should be able to give up his combat vitality in favour of higher support potential if that's what he prefers. Vice versa as well, a player should be able to give up some of his medic role to become a more dangerous prospect in the field.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 21:07
*shoot first revive second *revive first shoot second *revive first, retreat *medpack drop behind pack *pre-pack and shoot *medic train plenty of options available for players
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 21:13
I think those differences need to be bigger. If you got a preconceived plan then you should be able to bank on it and have an advantage as well as a disadvantage on people who just prefer to wing it in a balanced build.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 21:26
And we're back to fake skill... at least we lasted 4 pages this time.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 21:39
I think those differences need to be bigger. If you got a preconceived plan then you should be able to bank on it and have an advantage as well as a disadvantage on people who just prefer to wing it in a balanced build.
The differences b/w each approach are massive gameplay wise. I could go through them if you want, Plans arent required, but battlesense and awareness are required. Even for the easier approaches.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 21:39
Holy **** what is with this guy not wanting people to learn how to be good at something? Give them stuff to be a good medic, give them stuff to be a good soldier... learn to be a good medic! Learn to be a good soldier! The stuff is already there, learn to use the equipment to it's peak efficiency before asking for more.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 21:45
I don't see how that's mutually exclusive. You first have to learn something and know where your talents lie in order to adequately pick a specialisation tree. Having a good idea of your qualities and flaws IS a skill as much as any other competency in a game. If you don't know what exactly you're good at or -bravo!- if you're good at anything then you're best off with a balanced all-rounder build so you can be flexible and improvise a lot. That's how WoW works as well. Players who change talent builds will have to invest quite a bit of time to grow into it and become better at it. Mind you, that's time placed on top testing whether or not certain builds are actually working out well enough.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 21:52
The only time that I like customizable loadouts is when they work on a credit system. For example, buying stuff during the match in CS, the old Tribes games, Shadowrun, NS2. While I generally don't like cross-match XP and unlocks, I suppose you could do a permanent loadout system that also works with credit system. Some abilities could simply cost more than others...Maybe every player has 100 credits, and you use 60 of those on a great gun, which means you can't buy the more powerful abilities because you'd only have 40 left. Or vice versa. What I don't like is loadout systems that just give you slots and you put anything from a category into that slot. The balance constraints make it too boring. You end up having to tone down powerful abilities or weapons, and nobody uses the weak abilities. The beauty of a vending system in games like Starsiege Tribes, is that you can make the weapons and abilities as powerful or weak as you want...and then you just price them accordingly. But the reason I still sort of prefer restricted loadouts with no customization is that you can see any player in the game and instantly know what abilities they have. I believe that visibility increases the strategy ceiling substantially... for instance, I dislike fog of war in RTS because I think it actually lowers the strategy ceiling. So, I think that ideally: Best: Restricted loadouts with no customization - The focus is on interesting combination of abilities, balancing strengths and weaknesses (just like a fighting game character, or an RTS faction) Second Best: If there must be an XP and cross-match loadout system, limit the customization not by a number of slots, but by the costs of each ability. Every player has the same number of credits to spend on their loadout, and weapons/abilities are priced based on their perceived balance. The developers simply make the weapons and abilities so that they feel right...and they don't have to throw out interesting abilities because they are too weak. "Balancing" merely becomes the process of changing prices for things...not the weapons or abilities themselves.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 21:53
I don't see how that's mutually exclusive. You first have to learn something and know where your talents lie in order to adequately pick a specialisation tree. Having a good idea of your qualities and flaws IS a skill as much as any other competency in a game. If you don't know what exactly you're good at or -bravo!- if you're good at anything then you're best off with a balanced all-rounder build so you can be flexible and improvise a lot. That's how WoW works as well. Players who change talent builds will have to invest quite a bit of time to grow into it and become better at it. Mind you, that's time placed on top testing whether or not certain builds are actually working out well enough.
That's not a skill, it's common sense and NOT having your head buried in the sand or the mental state of a turnip. I know I'm not good at playing the piano, buying a program that plays most of it for me doesn't help me get better... practice does. Shortcuts, fakery, regardless of knowing your weakness, the option is there to improve without some fake enhancement helping you pretend you're better than you are... that's just delusional grandstanding. "Hey I'm an awesome medic!", no, your fake upgrades make you look better than you are and with them you'll improve at a snails pace.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 22:03
Having a good idea of your qualities and flaws IS a skill as much as any other competency in a game.
Knowing what is required in the moment is more impressive, than working it out on paper.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 22:42
If you know where you're lacking then you know where you have to improve, a tick box in a UI won't have any baring on this. If it takes 'skill' to know your good and bad points, then why is skill suddenly taking a back seat when it comes to improving yourself after this wonderful self analysis?
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 09:05
That's not a skill, it's common sense
Then I donīt see your problem with banking on a specialisation within a class. Afraid that your role may become redundant at certain points? That would mean you don't really know how to properly play that class-specialisation after all. Merely picking the best option from a whole range available isn't interesting. Having to pick from sub-optimal options because you went a different route is takes far more insight. On top of that, it also means you get situations where you're in exactly the right niche at the right moment which would pressure you to make the absolute best of the advantages given to you. Either way, a player that can recognise those situations is rewarded under a system where he can specify a role, that layer gets completely lost if all options are available all the time.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 11:42
If anything it seems youre afraid that the opposing players, have more options available than you.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 12:05
Back on topic... In regards to indoor medcrates:
I would also take away the ability to regen nades from it... This spices up the engies role on attack indoors, which usually only amounts to laying offensive mines that have no impact.
Just re-reading my post. Just realised it still doesnt solve the issue of engies being useless on attack, after the medcrate is constructed. The medcrate would need to grant the engie an ability of some sort. Perhaps poison mines, that reduce player speed but do zero dmg. And the medcrate would need to replenish them, so that the engie has something to do constantly.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 12:41
Then I donīt see your problem with banking on a specialisation within a class. Afraid that your role may become redundant at certain points? That would mean you don't really know how to properly play that class-specialisation after all.
Seems that you're afraid that you can't get by on your own laurels and need to rely on an artificial system to fill in the gaps that you can't be bothered to fill yourself. The gaps are there whether there's a check box for it or not, the option to focus your play style to fill those gaps or develop those areas are there whether you want to be purely support, purely offensive or in-between is there and always has been. If you need a system to tell you how to play, then I'm afraid it's the player themselves that have become redundant if they can't decide what type of player they want to be.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 12:42
I have to agree with DA, the thing is, you're not simply picking the best option from some list of all conceivable options, you learn as an individual that a certain class can operate a certain way without the game telling you, then using that knowledge, you apply that style of play to certain situations that call for it how you see fit. I don't see the need for skill trees telling us what routes we can take, removes all sense of discovery and is basically telling us how we ought to be playing by forcing us to pick these silly sub specialisations. Going back to rambo medics, players don't just suddenly decide I'm a rambo medic now and instantly gain the ability to perform such a role. They learn the tools the medic has available to them and how to use them in order to be aggressive and deadly, they learn the maps inside out so they know the best spots to ambush players and have a safe retreat to heal up. Likewise to be an adequate support medics you have to learn to read the needs of the team and how best to respond to those needs. Both styles of play use the same equipment loadout, same HP, same ammo and such, you have to learn how to use that same class for different situations.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 12:57
my suggestion is not a new class, but instead, allow people to choose hybrid classes. a mixture of 2 existing classes with minor features of each. few examples: hybrid between medic and field ops - able to drop medic packs and ammo, but no air strikes, arty, revives or crates hybrid between constructor and opressor - able to repair, disarm, and drop shields, but without deployables, mines, violators and arty hybrid between technician and agressor - able to drop stroyent and equiped with lighning pistol, but no revives, hosts or heavy weapons if etqw isn't confusing enough already, hehehe however this would require some changes in unlocks rewarding system, so i dont expect this to become real anytime soon (or later).
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 15:18
Seems that you're afraid that you can't get by on your own laurels and need to rely on an artificial system to fill in the gaps that you can't be bothered to fill yourself. The gaps are there whether there's a check box for it or not, the option to focus your play style to fill those gaps or develop those areas are there whether you want to be purely support, purely offensive or in-between is there and always has been. If you need a system to tell you how to play, then I'm afraid it's the player themselves that have become redundant if they can't decide what type of player they want to be.
You don't engage my point at all. Banking on a specialisation also means taking the disadvantages that come with a higher specialised role. That means that rather than having all tools at your disposal, you suddenly will have to learn how to mitigate the weaknesses simply because your (sub-)class doesn't always has the optimal answer to everything. Carrying significant strengths as well as weaknesses with you takes far more skill than just being an all-rounder. That's the point I'd like to see you address, for now you're only attacking a straw man.
my suggestion is not a new class, but instead, allow people to choose hybrid classes.
Seems like a novel idea but all it does is creating less diversity and making the differences between the classes more and more bland. DAUK would love it though. Even less ways to make wrong choices because you can be anything at all times.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 16:45
Your failure is that you think having all the tools automatically means that you're instantly a master at them. Classes themselves are already a specific niche as they are, you want to create even more niche models based on those classes. Round and round we go but hey lets humour your lack of vision once again shall we... someone that's specialized in a specific area and purposely handicapping themselves in another means that all they'll care about is their specific area of expertise, why would they want to get involved in their weakest area when they're... weak in that area? "We need to attack? Bugger that, I'm kitted out for a support role!". It's hard enough getting people to do a specific role at a time of need without giving them even more reason to avoid it.You're relying that every niche is catered for on the team before even knowing how the team is balanced out, and even then relying that said person that fills that role does what he needs to do *cough*BRINK*cough*... haven't you already been called out on these ugly, unnecessary and unwanted dice roll scenarios? Have you mastered every role of your desired class and need additional perks to spice it up? I'm gonna say no, you haven't, you've got room to build on any aspect you desire without faking it.. stop being so damned lazy. Same old argument, same old massive glaring holes everywhere. once again we're victims of the tokajack!
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 17:07
Did I get this right? Games like these are HARD enough without my system? You want things to be easier? Because that's exactly what you propose. Making all choices available at all time, if you extend your reasoning further then you may as well do without all classes and make one uber class that can do everything. Something which isn't much of a stretch considering the things you've been saying in the past. Limiting what's available and forcing people to make choices raises the skill ceiling. People who understand the game better will find a way to deal with their self-imposed weaknesses and at the same time maximise their self-gained advantages. They will have a new way to exceed those who need to rely on having everything available to them when they need it because they can't make up their mind. And mind you, even for people like you there's a place in that system. Nothing stops you from taking a bit of everything and have a really average build. It only means that because of that balance you won't have access to the upgrades a the end of the tree, because those upgrades require commitment.
Have you mastered every role of your desired class and need additional perks to spice it up? I'm gonna say no, you haven't,
Nor will I need to as some ways of playing simply don't appeal to me. I like having a unique style that I can modify and develop further however I please. It's that individual and personal feel to a play-style that I value and that's why it's in my interest not to have people be able to easily copy it or emulate it on a whim whenever it suits them.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 18:15
This is captain of DarkangelUK's point, we're currently flying at 35,000 ft and if you look out your window you'll see us flying over tokamak's head. I also find it quite amusing that you don't understand your own system, that's the best part.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 19:48
Commander class like in Battlefield 2 or Natural Selection 2
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 19:58
I'm proposing a simplified talent tree system like in WoW. The main difference is that rather than trees unlocking things straight away, they instead determine the rate at which you obtain them throughout a campaign. A player can have a specialised tree, then find out that there's need for things outside his tree. He can get them but it will take more work than progressing within his tree. Give me an afternoon and I'll divide each class in three archetypes in which players can fully specialise and examples of characteristic perks. In a way it's already quite similar to what Brink does. Brink however is not discriminate enough and gives the player so much choice that the choices become meaningless. That way the system only serves to get players slowly acquainted with the perks and not overwhelm them. The choices also really aren't very path dependant apart from a few different tiers of the same upgrade. There's a lot to gain here. Once this stuff becomes more restrictive and intuitive (and really, look at the way WoW did it. even the first talent system was nice, but now they have made a lot more sophisticated and easy to use). What this eventually gives us is deeper roles within the game. Why do we want that? Because it adds depth and narrative. Players need to figure out whether that incoming medic is a combat medic or a supply caddy. Some of it can be made out by visual cues, some of it simply needs to be observed by their actions. Adding a whole new meta game (supply medics tricking players into believing they're combat medics by boldly storming forward). It evokes inventiveness and imagination in a player. And yes this means that sometimes you're in a role that isn't fit for the situation. Tough. It's compensated by being in a role that completely suits your situation, it's your job to steer the matches into such a way that your advantages become relevant and your disadvantages become less relevant. It doesn't need to determine the game either. There's a chance that other players will catch it where you fall short and vice versa. And even if that doesn't happen then all classes still have the base function that at least prevents a match from being impossible to complete. There's no such thing as a 'must-have' on the specialisation tree. Without this there's no diversity. The classes will simply always be played in the right way at the right time simply because it's a really as trivial a thing as fitting a square peg in a square hole. Yes, the act itself may still require skill, but nothing about a specialisation tree changes that. Whether it's exclusively available through a specialisation or simply available to everyone playing that class, it still takes the same skill. In this system the difference is actually more pronounced due to the fact that the limited availability of such tools means that players who learn faster will enjoy the benefits more simply because there's overall less opportunity to practice them due to not everyone in that class having that tool. This means this system gives a wider scope in skill diversity than not having it. I'm still not sure what exactly your objection is, but it's definitely not about skill difference.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 20:21
We know, you've said it all before, in every other thread... just as before. Personally I think it's a crap idea... just like before.. and full of nonsense and made up statements to suit your pov... just like before.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 20:31
Balance is another issue altogether. If the medic was nerfed all one would need to do is prioritise the medic on every engagement, and every push would be held pretty easily. The medic needs to be able to hold its own in combat, or the whole thing collapses.
Can we return to this point? In etqw: The medic has no trouble holding its own. The medic is the most consistently crucial class in the game. In infantry combat, there is almost never a class which is a more effective choice, aside from the need for objective and one covie&fops(which is not needed on strogg or on a gdf team which will /respawn). I think every decent player has a massively disproportionate amount of time spent as medic/tech. I don't see how that isn't a design problem in a class based game.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 20:33
Seems to me that it's purely down to self reliance, 2 things you need to keep trooping is health and ammo, and generally health runs out quicker than ammo. Being able to keep yourself topped up with health (GDF) or both (technician) means you don't need anyone else for the task of killing. Removing the ability to self heal would solve that... and enrage quite a few in the process.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 20:42
A few choice points.
Making all choices available at all time, if you extend your reasoning further then you may as well do without all classes and make one uber class that can do everything.
They're not available all the time. There is a penalty. You need to die/respawn. It's not a huge penalty but one that ensures the choice being is both considered for the moment at hand and also allowing freedom to choose an adequate tactic. What you continue to propose is that by some witchcraft painting yourself into a corner and limiting your options is going to be overcome with skill. This is hard to do when the ability to use skill in the game has been tempered through the need to balance all those lovely perks and niches.
And mind you, even for people like you there's a place in that system. Nothing stops you from taking a bit of everything and have a really average build. It only means that because of that balance you won't have access to the upgrades a the end of the tree, because those upgrades require commitment.
Congratulations. Your solution is to create a build nobody is going to be happy using being in any situation it will be overpowered. Honestly, this is a terrible cop out.
Nor will I need to as some ways of playing simply don't appeal to me. I like having a unique style that I can modify and develop further however I please. It's that individual and personal feel to a play-style that I value and that's why it's in my interest not to have people be able to easily copy it or emulate it on a whim whenever it suits them.
You can do that through actually developing real skills without the need to impose some faux skill system in the game and all the baggage that comes with it. It's like making Dom need a pilot class and skills in order to be deadly in the air rather than him being better because he actually is. It's pretty saddening that you can dismiss player ability so easily, like it contributes nothing to the game. Re topic: I'd like to see some sort of commander role if only to channel XP towards a team pool and take away the personal investment in upgrades. I understand this brings some other issues along with it, perhaps such a role could be scaled back so not to be so critical or simplified so that it's not as brutal a learning curve. Maybe that would make it a poor choice for people though or worse it'd be so simple that each map would impose an expected path from the rest of the team. MMmm maybe just pool XP at a team level and unlock upgrades across all classes. Give the FOps an RTS view to drop supplies and distanced air strikes etc.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 20:43
Can we return to this point?
Sure :)
In etqw: The medic has no trouble holding its own. The medic is the most consistently crucial class in the game. In infantry combat, there is almost never a class which is a more effective choice, aside from the need for objective and one covie&fops(which is not needed on strogg or on a gdf team which will /respawn). I think every decent player has a massively disproportionate amount of time spent as medic/tech. I don't see how that isn't a design problem in a class based game.
Yes ofcourse, its designed to hold its own so that it can full-fill its traditional role. Its combat efficiency, is in proportion with its importance to the team... and the enemy's target priorities. If the class was nerfed, it wouldnt stand a chance in direct engagements, which would urinate on the overall revive count. Kind of ironic, given the discussion is about rambo medics :) That said they could actually nerf the medic, boost the soldier's combat capabilities and try and force a relationship b/w the two classes... but once the soldier deviates from its responsibility to protect the medic or... goes rambo, the medic will fall flat on its face. Its far better to leave the medic as the powerhouse it is, with the knowing that it will be played in multiple styles. As for it being a problem... I dont have an issue with it. But I do want to see matches, where class distribution isnt predictable, or lob-sided.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 21:17
Without this there's no diversity. The classes will simply always be played in the right way at the right time simply because it's a really as trivial a thing as fitting a square peg in a square hole. Yes, the act itself may still require skill, but nothing about a specialisation tree changes that. Whether it's exclusively available through a specialisation or simply available to everyone playing that class, it still takes the same skill. In this system the difference is actually more pronounced due to the fact that the limited availability of such tools means that players who learn faster will enjoy the benefits more simply because there's overall less opportunity to practice them due to not everyone in that class having that tool.
The diversity comes from different people judging what they think is best for a situation and applying their own knowledge to that situation, there is no one right way to play. An objective room with 3 team mates waiting to be revived surrounded by a couple of enemies, you are a lone medic, there are a number of ways to approach that situation, I'll give 3. 1) Take out the enemies first as you suspect they've taken damage then revive the team. 2) Revive the team first as quick as you can so you now outnumber the enemy, even if you die in the process. 3) Fall back and wait for them to respawn and attack together. Different people will think a different option is best for that situation depending on how they've already chosen to play the role of a medic, they don't need a skill tree telling them how to play a certain way for the medic and giving them specific unlocks to help them along the way. I'd be really pissed off if I couldn't change from an "offensive engineer" to a "defensive engineer" in this deal with your choice system in a situation where the other engineers on my team are failing to defend the objective or we simply don't have other engineers and because my "offensive engineer" sub-class doesn't have mines or turrets available so I can't do anything about it, silly me for thinking someone else would automatically fill in the gaps left by forcing me into an even more specific role.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 21:26
Stating the obvious, but without knowing the overall game design it's difficult to suggest appropriate classes. For example, do vehicles play a large role, are we targeting pure pubfest or do we expect some kind of proper competitive skill based metagame to develop (cos that sure puts paid to skill trees and other unicorn rpg rubbish). Personally if we're restricting this to the original model of RTCW (and why wouldnt we) and it's bastardised offspring of W:ET and (to a much much lesser extent) QW, then four classes are fine, any more is just making things up for the sake of it. One for health/revives (medic), one for ammo/support (lt), one for large scale/tactical weapons (soldier), one objective specialist (engineer). Please dont try to justify CovOps - just don't... Commander role in publics is typically atrocious and for competitive games would most likely be a complete waste of time - as someone said BF2 had it, didnt make a stellar return in BF3...As for countering rambo medics, just look at how TF2 works - no rambo meds there, in fact not many folk playing med at all (unless they are enlightened). Personally leave the rambo med alone, some class will always end up making up the bulk of the team, just as long as it doesnt lead to no one at all playing the other classes it's fine. The main thing is to keep the game, classes and weapons relatively simple and easy to get, but as mentioned by others hard to master - not by dint of grind or skill trees or any other false differentiators. Just make it truly skill based with a level playing field each time - you dont see folk running onto the football field with hydraulic leg extenders or powered tennis rackets - for a very good reason - really becomes hard to balance. That said if you insist on having another class how about Paratrooper - speciality able to spawn anywhere on the map provided it's over open ground. can be seen and shot though. Typically used as a commando role, could even roll some of the covops functions into the class just to make it more gay.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 21:27
Sure :) Yes ofcourse, its designed to hold its own so that it can full-fill its traditional role. Its combat efficiency, is in proportion with its importance to the team... and the enemy's target priorities. If the class was nerfed, it wouldnt stand a chance in direct engagements, which would urinate on the overall revive count.
Well, as the non-rambo medic I would look for some ppl to be around... about the number of revives. I guess it will be increased then, as medic would not be that powerful... what still does not mean it would have no chance in combat, as well as soldier does not have 200 hp, medic's MP would not make 1 damage/hit... It would be still playable for that "selfish" style ppl, yet it would have not only the advantages. Why shall it beat any other class in real combat? Paper, scissors, stone and medic? Being weaker in combat, it would be more prone to stick with the rest of the team, right where it's needed. The current approach - second chance in combat at no cost - is not contributing to the game's balance improvement About the space of possible classes... I guess we should start calling it like that... I agree with the argument, that what should make the difference is who plays the game, not what bunch of perks that person would buy for XP or whatever. As I said before - clear, easy interface and the deepness coming out of the in-game possibilities, not from some "artificial" perks. Trick-jump shall be trick, not perk. Aim shall be aim, not bot points to buy for XP. Why XP whoring should make the difference? montheponies Nice post. Excluding rambo apology, and attack on CvOps, I agree. The game should be simple in use, and where it have to get complicated is it's battlefield, where bunch of simple classes with their gadgets combined forms the fairly complicated situation, no need for players spending time in the forest of perks and "skill-points"... That;s kind of things that sounds cool yet in practice they're just not.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 22:16
Well, as the non-rambo medic I would look for some ppl to be around... about the number of revives. I guess it will be increased then, as medic would not be that powerful... what still does not mean it would have no chance in combat, as well as soldier does not have 200 hp, medic's MP would not make 1 damage/hit... It would be still playable for that "selfish" style ppl, yet it would have not only the advantages. Why shall it beat any other class in real combat? Paper, scissors, stone and medic? Being weaker in combat, it would be more prone to stick with the rest of the team, right where it's needed.
Im having trouble understanding your post... but ill try and explain my post in another way. IF the medic is reduced to a role of simply healing / reviving and chip damage... merely to remove rambo medics, then the players that will rage the most will be the non-rambo medics. They will be a priority target, to prevent revives.
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 23:16
Im having trouble understanding your post... but ill try and explain my post in another way. IF the medic is reduced to a role of simply healing / reviving and chip damage... merely to remove rambo medics, then the players that will rage the most will be the non-rambo medics. They will be a priority target, to prevent revives.
That's partially why I'd like to see Nurse class instead of medic. Smaller hit area is the answer, as well as not that much lower effectiveness. As CvOps excels in long range, and sux in short, medic would be powerful class in bunch of teammates and would be weak alone. Also medic still get an edge on medium distance, as it can hide and heal-up himself, while his say engineer interlocutor cannot. It won't be a weak class, it would just have both positive and negative sides. It would not be overpowered.
Posted on 14 November, 2012 - 00:00
...As CvOps excels in long range, and sux in short
CvOps doesn't suck at close quarters. Just takes a particular play style to excel at it. EDIT: To expand on that, no class sucks, just need a particular play style to excel at it.
Posted on 14 November, 2012 - 00:05
CvOps doesn't suck at close quarters. Just takes a particular play style to excel at it.
Damage per second is what I'm looking at as far as assault rifle is concerned. And about sniper rifle... well, I don't think most of ppl can use it in close combat without lag-exploit-with-no-scope-yet-surprisingly-accurate-shot, or even with it. EDIT: And at the ending chapter of the plan you meet the Rambo right on top of the med-packs hill... ;-) We really should let him have a bit less firepower :).
Posted on 14 November, 2012 - 00:13
Yes ofcourse, its designed to hold its own so that it can full-fill its traditional role. Its combat efficiency, is in proportion with its importance to the team... and the enemy's target priorities. If the class was nerfed, it wouldnt stand a chance in direct engagements, which would urinate on the overall revive count. Kind of ironic, given the discussion is about rambo medics :) Its far better to leave the medic as the powerhouse it is, with the knowing that it will be played in multiple styles.
That last line is the issue. The point isn't that it holds it's own. The point is that it goes far beyond other classes in that ability, except for the soldier in firepower. That there is such a thing as a rambo medic is purely down to the fact that the class has limited or no team reliance (can replenish both ammo and health. Tech can respawn near combat with full everything.), as opposed to all other classes. Having a medic become team reliant would bring it in line with every other class, not destroy it. My suggestions are to remove ammo regen from the class, more successfully implement ammo limitations, and impose a gameplay significant cooldown interval between when the class can pick up its own med kits. The fact that I can duck away from any mid range firefight I'm not clearly winning to med and stroy up (or is that down?) and them beat my opponent over the head with my health bar indicates a game design flaw. The fact that I feel clever doing this indicates that I'm a sadistic asshole, but that's another matter. __________________________ Oh, I had another suggestion along the lines of how much I hate the current field ops role and think it should have more of a command and logistical support role. While removing the stupid artillery deployables, obviously, along with the idea of APT's, let them laser target things to support other classes. For instance, when they laser target a ground location, that would give mortars (engineers) an arc-adjusted hud reticle to hit the location. When they target a vehicle, soldier's would get a decoy-proof missile lock. Maybe the projectile would have to fly slower so the vehicle has a realistic evade option. Also, let the target be targetable by AVT's beyond their standard targeting range. I believe I already mentioned this class should take on the role of forward spawning, rather than techs.
Posted on 14 November, 2012 - 03:26
Demolitions man (demoman) class as in TeamFortress definitely. That is the class that is really needed for defending the objectives and choke points. The key feature would be his ability to lay pipetraps (easily visible grenades/pineapples that can be all exploded at once by a click of a button). Ideally he would carry also a normal grenade launcher with explode-on-player-impact pineapples that also need to be able to bounce off non-player/deployable/vehicle obstacles. Demoman could be given HE charges instead of soldiers to explode things and objectives. Also a Pyromaniac class would be nice. Flamethrowers were nice in RTCW and most players like them and even regard them as a must-have in such a game. Alternatively, a soldier can be given the ability to carry flamethrower as in RTCW.
Posted on 14 November, 2012 - 07:32
Classes from et / etqw were fine to me. I can't really think of any defined roles that are totally different from what the 4 already cover. It also depends on the type of game too I guess. Future , past or present ? So going with that, I would maybe try to add another of each of the 4 classes in et-qw. (sticking with the qw GDF side for ease) Medic and ............ (cant think of anything, that nurse suggestion, the one with the gun, not minigames :P, could work i guess) Field ops (more support role than etqw airstrike man) and Anti-field ops (for lack of better name) - basically would disrupt radar, give false signatures, stuff like that..countermeasure stuff.... Soldier and Sniper - This one is fairly obvious. Covert ops (No sniper weaps, give them more disguise stuff) and Recon - Recon would be similar to covert ops, but no disguises, and can spot targets or guide in stuff etc etc..... Other then that I guess in a present or future time setting game you could do some sort of Tech class. It would hack stuff, use shields and short duration cloaking devices, teleporters , shock / electrical weapons , anything you can think of that would be "techie" or made by some smart / crazy inventor.
Posted on 14 November, 2012 - 07:48
I just felt need to sum up: (note: it will not be objective at all; actually I should not name it "sum") 1. Soldier: + Flame Thrower :))) + Old style machine gun. + Mortar. +... Let's just say ET-Soldier. I was more like a "soldier" than what we have in ETQW... 2. Nurse! + Harder to hit. + MP instead of rifle, therefore a bit less damage to enemies. 3. Engineer: + Land mines + Dynamite + Water pump repaired! 4. Field-Ops: + Indoors abilities, more than dropping ammo. 5. CvOps: +Sniper Rifle (ET-style), I know many ppl don't like the idea, yet it was wickedly fun to snipe back then :)) in old ET. HeadShot might kill on long distance, while body and limbs - say 1,5 times more than standard AR's hit. 6. Commander? Well, it does not have to be a class thing at all. And it probably would be bad solution compared to class-indifferent seat in some MCP or whatever... Anyway - I'm totally against this whole idea.
Posted on 14 November, 2012 - 08:24