View Full Version : looting "makes it alot more of a balance nightmare"
couldnt disagree with this statement more. i was under the impression that the variety of weapons and how they differ between empires created a balance nightmare and looting helped relieve the problem. i buy the technical reason for getting rid of jacking vehicles but i dont see how it applies to hand held weapons. i suspect this has more to do with the new class system and weapon upgrades.
There's no inventory (just confirmed on redit).
So much for designing it with us in mind lol, more like removing everything we love.
I get where he's going with no inventory. They're trying to include badass class-only items/abilities that would be broken with the classic PS1 inspector gadget loadouts. So as you progress down the medic skill tree, maybe your loadout can include a charge that you throw on the ground that sends out a mass electric charge and revives anyone in the area. I pulled that out of my ass but basically, think of the different roles as having badass items that would be gamebreaking if one person had access to several of them at a time.
Anyway that's how I'm interpreting what they are saying.
... or just make it so you can't use other people's shit that you're not certed for, sort of how it works now?
Reginald
2011-07-10, 12:29 PM
Yeah no looting sucks, with everything else they are doing it looks like they are trying to "modernize" the gameplay, well just about any modern fps, or old fps, for that matter, lets you pick up stuff from the enemies you vanquish, so whats the real dealio SOE??
There's no inventory (just confirmed on redit).
So much for designing it with us in mind lol, more like removing everything we love.
Agree.
No inventory. Traditional classes (pretty much.) No jacking vehicles or using other empires weapons. I'm no longer sold on this.
Agree.
No inventory. Traditional classes (pretty much.) No jacking vehicles or using other empires weapons. I'm no longer sold on this.
No, there are no traditional classes. It's just a tightening of the cert system.
the cert system is really, really free-form. You can be as specialized or generalized as you want to be. If you want to put all your advancement time into Reavers you can do that, and you'll have a more maneuverable, durable and powerful vehicle with plenty of options for secondary weapons and fun gadgets. If you want to spread your certification across lots of different things and be more of a jack of all trades, go for it.
Grimster
2011-07-10, 12:41 PM
Well I would want to keep the inventory system. But they probably have their reasons for removing it and to be honest they need to screw up more badly than that before I start singing the doomsday song. :D
Mirror
2011-07-10, 12:43 PM
Getting rid of inventories is a bad idea.
Guess we need to put our point across.
... or just make it so you can't use other people's shit that you're not certed for, sort of how it works now?
Pure speculation on my part here, but this is how I interpret it:
You may very well BE certified to use an item. Let's take the previous made up example and say that the medic charge requires a level 10 medic. Now maybe you ARE a level 10 medic, but you're currently playing as engineer, so you can't loot a weapon you are certed for. So basically you may be limited to (for the most part) - only looting people from your own class. Now let's say that there is a difference, for example the other empire doesn't have a revive charge, they have a healing beacon instead. Should you be able to loot it and use both? I'm thinking not.
I do mourn the loss of looting but I can see how it might become somewhat of a nightmare determining what you can vs. what you can't loot and could have an impact on learning curve.
No, there are no traditional classes. It's just a tightening of the cert system.
Nothing I've read so far indicates that the classes will not be based on some traditional class system found in every other game since the dawn of time. Classes are classes. Based upon what I've read collectively from every other aspect, it seems to indicate some level of that traditional base (and I dislike that concept greatly.) Lots of certifications and lots of customization is something I am interested in. Detail, intelligent decision, complexity. I want to level my character up and choose a path of my own. Dumbing it down in general to make it a more "action packed" game isn't interesting to me.
(1:39:52 PM) MooK: it wasn't a "pain" to manage my inventory so that I had to sacrifice medkits for ammo or vise versa
(1:40:18 PM) MooK: it was a tactical decision
Nothing I've read so far indicates that the classes will not be based on some traditional class system found in every other game since the dawn of time.
the cert system is really, really free-form. You can be as specialized or generalized as you want to be. If you want to put all your advancement time into Reavers you can do that, and you'll have a more maneuverable, durable and powerful vehicle with plenty of options for secondary weapons and fun gadgets. If you want to spread your certification across lots of different things and be more of a jack of all trades, go for it.
I have for years used the Planetside cert system as an example of an absolutely ingenious and well-executed system, so I'm right with you on it's brilliance. It works incredibly well to let players grow in meaningful but horizontal ways. Our system does a lot of the same things
What you're describing is basically what we're doing. You can switch classes, loadouts, etc situationally. Either when you respawn or at equipment terminals.
-I agree the ps1 had a great system, we're definitely keeping the spirit of that system in ps2. What you won't have is a dude that looks like a medic rolling around with a rocket launcher, or a light assault dude with a jump jet who also can use a chaingun. We're offering a lot of cool, divergent gameplay styles that in a completely freeform style system would be way, way too easy to stack and exploit.
Satisfied?
Nope.
They see mook trollin', they hatin'...
They see mook trollin', they hatin'...
Are you satisfied with just what you've read so far? Wouldn't you want to know more?
Are you satisfied with just what you've read so far? Wouldn't you want to know more?
Oh, I thought you meant you were thoroughly convinced that it was going to be a strict class system.
Yeah, I'd love to know more. My bad.
Tikuto
2011-07-10, 12:55 PM
No inventories is perfectly fine. There could have been an alternative to loot-salvaging, however.
An alternative like a simple class-relative indicator on a dead enemy body which basically means to say "You and your Class is able to swap your specific item with this enemy's item".
A 'salvage interface' would appear. Easy-to-use one-click swapping of equipment.
If a dead enemy has already been salvaged? There would be a 'greyed-down' indication.
Salvaging.
simplez!
http://rebelbadges.co.uk/images/simple-merrkat-button-badges-www.rebelbadges.co.jpg
Mirror
2011-07-10, 12:57 PM
If I have MA or HA or SA or AV certed then I expect to be able to loot and use common pool or enemy weapons which I can use.
What if I run out of ammo? I dont expect to have to find someone or an equipment term that can give me an ammo pack or a new gun. I want to be able to pick up a gun from the dead guy and use that.
Oh, I thought you meant you were thoroughly convinced that it was going to be a strict class system.
Yeah, I'd love to know more. My bad.
We just don't know enough about this game. They say a reimagination of PlanetSide, but so many aspects of it are being changed or removed completely. Things that, in my opinion, made PlanetSide--well, PlanetSide. I think that in the coming months they need to have some sort of surveying system in place that asks what players really want, and then tie that into their vision.
We just don't know enough about this game. They say a reimagination of PlanetSide, but so many aspects of it are being changed or removed completely. Things that, in my opinion, made PlanetSide--well, PlanetSide. I think that in the coming months they need to have some sort of surveying system in place that asks what players really want, and then tie that into their vision.
It's still planetside. Mind it's not 2003 any more and they HAVE to bring the gameplay to 2011 standards, whenever you like it or not. (I actually don't like 2011 standards myself, but that's not the point)
I don't see much of a difference between having to change loadout via inventory (PS1) or via cert system (PS2). Sure it doesn't sound to be as flexible, but I don't really see why should we dramatize over every single feature that's changing.
PS1 has 20k subscribers (and that's a very optimistic number) and they would make a huge mistake to listen to community that naturally will be opposed to any and all changes. That is unless they want to sell more than 50k copies.
In my opinion, it is perfectly fine if someone jacks an enemy vehicle and gets an advantage over the enemy. Jacking is balanced because it is hard to do, and the risk of jacking a vehicle should be balanced with a reward of using the enemy's tech.
Gandhi
2011-07-10, 01:55 PM
I think Goku was right, it sounds like this is just a budget/time issue. Maybe it'll be reintroduced in an update later on, because all the problems I've seen mentioned seem solvable.
Even something as simple as always reverting the vehicle or gun to the base model with no upgrades upon hacking/looting should solve the balance issues. Then just keep any specialized faction skills or abilities from applying to hacked vehicles. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense from a logical standpoint, but if that's what it takes to keep hacking and looting then I'd happily look the other way.
It's still planetside. Mind it's not 2003 any more and they HAVE to bring the gameplay to 2011 standards, whenever you like it or not. (I actually don't like 2011 standards myself, but that's not the point)
I don't see much of a difference between having to change loadout via inventory (PS1) or via cert system (PS2). Sure it doesn't sound to be as flexible, but I don't really see why should we dramatize over every single feature that's changing.
PS1 has 20k subscribers (and that's a very optimistic number) and they would make a huge mistake to listen to community that naturally will be opposed to any and all changes. That is unless they want to sell more than 50k copies.
You don't think that more people would be willing to play Planetside if there had been continous content and story updates that justified the $15 price tag?
Sifer2
2011-07-10, 06:39 PM
Honestly no Inventories screams more than anything else so far that it may be a multiplatform console oriented game. Since a real inventory system is one of the first things to go when you decide to do a console port. Since gamepads suck for managing inventory.
I said it another thread but I fail to see the value in removing inventory. Unless they are just lazy an want it more simplistic for their own ease of balancing. But seriously if it turns out to be 2 weapons at a time, preset amount of ammo for them, an preset limit of grenades/medkits you carry. Then congrats on turning a unique game into another bland modern shooter.
Rbstr
2011-07-10, 06:46 PM
No inventory doesn't mean you don't have control over what you're equipped with.
Basically you won't have to put ammo boxes into a neat little grid, you'll still be able to change what weapons and equipment you take.
So more of a less-strict Battlesfield system than an RPG system: You pick a class that qualifies you for certain equipment but you can change within the parameters, some things cross over. Planetside2 is just going to be very broad with those parameters.
Now if we end up unable to pick up a dead person's junk when qualified for its use..I think that would be a mistake.
Of course skills could be empire specific...so...I can understand it being a nightmare.
It's one of the things we're going to have to play to really judge. It could go bad or very well.
Sifer2
2011-07-10, 07:03 PM
Yes but I still have to ask what the benefit is of the change. I can only think of two at the moment.
1. Makes the console port easier.
2. Makes it easier for idiots.
In the latter case it would seem easy enough to just include preset inventory setups for those too dumb to manage their own. While leaving the system open for everyone else to customize. I mean if I want to sacrifice grenades an medkits for lots of ammo why shouldn't I be allowed?
No inventory also pretty much confirms no Vehicle trunks or big MAX storage. Both of which I thought were really cool an fit the persistent nature of the world. I really want to hear from them why they cut this.
Rbstr
2011-07-10, 07:07 PM
3. Balance
They'll have more control over certain things...like how many medikits and grenades you have. If frags are more than a pittance of damage this time around, having people carry a billion at a time might be a bad thing. Think of battlefield and ammo-box+grenade spam and how retarded it is. Then remove the need for the ammo box.
A well balanced game is much better experience than dicking around with medikits.
At the same time I anticipate some kind of ammo-amount vs nades or medikits (I hope these are significantly reworked from during combat boosters or simply removed for medic-centric or skill-based things)
CutterJohn
2011-07-10, 07:11 PM
Keep in mind that losing control of inventory means some things can be more easily balanced. Grenades and such in PS1 could not be powerful, because you would just fill your inventory with them. Making the inventories less freeform allows them to make powerful grenades, because they can severely restrict the amount that can be carried, or even the classes they are available too.
They can make heals easier to give out, as well as revives, since not everyone can carry a med app.
They can make AV actually put a hurt on tanks
Make CE more powerful, but also limited by having to be in an engineer suit or it explodes.
Yeah, its a change, but its a tradeoff, not a loss. Some good gameplay can come of it.
Grenades in PS1 were extremely powerful for their inventory size, what game did you play?
Death2All
2011-07-10, 07:17 PM
... or just make it so you can't use other people's shit that you're not certed for, sort of how it works now?
On that point, we could loot things from other players that we weren't certed for in PS1. We just simply couldn't equip them because we weren't certed for them. If down the the line a talent tree or whatever there's some item you get, why not just not allow the player to use it if they loot it unless they had a similar talent.
Or maybe it's deeper than that because of all the weapon modifications you can supposedly do. Even still, It's a shame that we can't loot other peoples guns. Maybe all of your talents could be made void when equipping someone else's gun and you can temporarily have identical talents to that gun, if you were also certed for it. I don't know, maybe we're looking to deeply into this.
CutterJohn
2011-07-10, 07:17 PM
They had uses. They were not very powerful. I believe they may be the weakest grenades I've ever seen in a game.
Forsaken One
2011-07-10, 07:18 PM
PS1 has 20k subscribers (and that's a very optimistic number) and they would make a huge mistake to listen to community that naturally will be opposed to any and all changes. That is unless they want to sell more than 50k copies.
you seem to forget Planetsides lack of advertising. I for one didn't even knew Planetside EXISTed till the reserves and the talk around it.
I seriously bet if it had WoW advertising when it first came out not only would more people have got the game but sony might not have screwed it up/moved devs away from it do to the mass influx of people it would have had.
They had uses. They were not very powerful. I believe they may be the weakest grenades I've ever seen in a game.
AOE spam shouldn't be strong.
Rbstr
2011-07-10, 07:26 PM
Compared to nearly any other FPS I've played they are less effective (I'm talking frag grenades, not plasma...which could be effective).
They weren't really even that AOE, if they had real range of the damage I could understand, but they didn't. They also take forever to equip then throw. I'venever found them useful.
A frag-nade should be a go to weapon for people-behind-things. And a single one with a good throw should damn near kill them dead. It's critical anti-camping balance. But they get too powerful when you've got a dozen...that's why you limit it to a couple.
Then you can't spam them.
2coolforu
2011-07-10, 07:30 PM
Yeah but you have a problem, It's not unknown to have 150 people having a fight in a base hold, that means you have optimistically 150 frag grenades to be thrown every respawn cycle. If they kill in one hit that's some immense douchebaggery to be had, grenades in planetside were not meant to be a main weapon. They were meant to soft, en enemies and drive them out of camping spots which is a job they filled perfectly.
CutterJohn
2011-07-10, 07:30 PM
AOE spam shouldn't be strong.
Indeed. And I doubt you will be able to in PS2, allowing them to be strong.
Yeah but you have a problem, It's not unknown to have 150 people having a fight in a base hold, that means you have optimistically 150 frag grenades to be thrown every respawn cycle. If they kill in one hit that's some immense douchebaggery to be had, grenades in planetside were not meant to be a main weapon. They were meant to soft, en enemies and drive them out of camping spots which is a job they filled perfectly.
Those 150 grunts also have 150 guns, and 15,000 rounds of ammo, potentially killing 1000 grunts. Outrageous!
Yeah, I get killed by grenades in games where they are instakill. But not even close to 100% of the time they are thrown at me. Stay sharp. Move out of the way. Most don't even get thrown, since you die before a situation one is useful arises.
I concede that they could not be explode on impact if they were that powerful.
For my money, it would be better to have 1 or 2 powerful grenades instead of potentially an entire backpack of duds.
Forsaken One
2011-07-10, 07:34 PM
I would love to see anti-kill grenades.
Take a look at S.W.A.T. 4 you had sting,flash and gas grenades. NO frag/death nades.
BF2:SF the gas nades.
BF2142: EMP is a semi flash nade.
I think this would be good things to add to PS2. as well as Fire. think about it. doing bombing runs where you use Area-of-Denial napalm. instead of insta kill bombs. flash banging then clearing an enemy out. or gas nades to try and force them to choose to walk through it losing the ability to aim/their view is druged etc.
Compared to nearly any other FPS I've played they are less effective (I'm talking frag grenades, not plasma...which could be effective).
They weren't really even that AOE, if they had real range of the damage I could understand, but they didn't. They also take forever to equip then throw. I'venever found them useful.
A frag-nade should be a go to weapon for people-behind-things. And a single one with a good throw should damn near kill them dead. It's critical anti-camping balance. But they get too powerful when you've got a dozen...that's why you limit it to a couple.
Then you can't spam them.
If you hit anyone with any bit of a plasma grenade the damage would be enough to ensure you have the upper hand in accuracy. Plasma grenades were far too strong.
Rbstr
2011-07-10, 07:45 PM
Yeah but you have a problem, It's not unknown to have 150 people having a fight in a base hold, that means you have optimistically 150 frag grenades to be thrown every respawn cycle. If they kill in one hit that's some immense douchebaggery to be had, grenades in planetside were not meant to be a main weapon. They were meant to soft, en enemies and drive them out of camping spots which is a job they filled perfectly.
Yeah, that is a problem. But you'll note I didn't advocate for a one hit kill or even that everyone should have them. "They be nading 'erybody out here" isn't what anyone wants.
Bags: Yeah, part of that is planetside's fps mechanics are crap. Like catching fire for sustained periods, losing accuracy with every tick combined with lol-probability COF and not having a way to put yourself out.
How about Love Grenades - the affected rip their armor off and begin humping next persons leg.
Or Justin Bieber Granade - Justins 'vocal' causes the affected to try to cover their ears. 20% chance to commit suicide.
Rbstr
2011-07-10, 07:50 PM
Learn to love the Bieber Fever.
2coolforu
2011-07-10, 07:55 PM
Indeed. And I doubt you will be able to in PS2, allowing them to be strong.
Those 150 grunts also have 150 guns, and 15,000 rounds of ammo, potentially killing 1000 grunts. Outrageous!
Yeah, I get killed by grenades in games where they are instakill. But not even close to 100% of the time they are thrown at me. Stay sharp. Move out of the way. Most don't even get thrown, since you die before a situation one is useful arises.
I concede that they could not be explode on impact if they were that powerful.
For my money, it would be better to have 1 or 2 powerful grenades instead of potentially an entire backpack of duds.
Yeah but that's just a total non-sequitur, play any modern FPS like CoD and witness the grenade abuse that results from people carrying merely one grenade. The indoors of bases are far more cramped and populated than any CoD map, throw grenades into that and imagine the clusterfuck that would result.
But obviously in CoD I can carry 210 rounds of ammunition for my AK which is enough to kill 100 people so HAXXX!!!!!!! NERF!!!!. The idea is that the one grenade can probably give you a kill far more easily than the rifle as you can throw it at the vague area in which the defense are an get a kill. Same with CoD you can blindly chuck 'nades here there and everywhere and get a kill, Planetsides 'nades actually filled their purpose effectively without the cheap instadeath.
The argument that 1-2 superpowerful nades is better than 20 moderately powerful is equivalent to saying that we should have supressors with 1 shot that insta-gibs because it's more efficient. Balance matters too....
SKYeXile
2011-07-10, 07:57 PM
I get where matt is coming from. but i still agree afew people rolling around as VS with MCGs or jacks isnot a gamebreaker.
what they mean its hard to balance is, planetside always went for a starcraft sort of balance to it, while an empire may have a specific advntage with one gun, they makup for it with their weakness in another.
For example:
NC is strongest at close range, as such they are on of the best empires for indoor fighting with the scatt max and jackhammer, but they're not as good on the field, they have the phoenix for AV which makes whem weak to air, combined with the sparrow who is really only good at long open ranges. but to kill a hponic user as infantry you need to get in close, where they will easily mow you down with high powered vanguard shells and gauss rifles.
The TR is best on the field, they have long range weapons and their AV provides good decent air and vehcile cover, while the burster is a decent max for aircover, i really think the TR take the VSs role as most versitle since the MCG is still good at closer ranges.
The VS, have strong AV with the magrider and lancer and strong AA with the starfire, but are weaker indoors and lack a decent AI gun on the mag, this is madeup with the aroua though, and the strong AV is madeup with lack of highpowered gold ammo.
you can kinda see what they were going for, each empire has its strengths and weaknesses...but i think they still failed.
Don't want enemies using your guns? don't let 'em kill ya ;p
Coyote
2011-07-10, 08:07 PM
The inventory system is something I've always enjoyed. I decide my kit, I pick what I want and leave what I don't. I can choose to take a risk and only bring 1 medikit, but more ammo/grenades, or I can play it safe for the long haul. It's up to ME to decide what I'M wearing, and that is something more video games need to adapt. I'm disappointed in hearing the inventory system is going the way of the dodo, but I never really liked having to manage my inventory mid-firefight to replace spent grenades or switch over to a medkit. So this is something that "we will have to see" before I can make a full nay or yay judgement. Right now I'm leaning on Nay for this. Now, this topic went off and started talking about Grenades and knives and stuff. So here.
Grenades as a whole are something that you should be required to switch too and then lobbed. Insta-toss grenades (and insta-stab knives(and even 1-2 second insta-stab knives)) are things that make me cringe.
Planetside is not the most realistic game in the world, yes. But simple mechanics need to be followed. I have an extremely hard time believing that someone runs around with a frag grenade and a knife in one hand and their gun in the other at all times. Even this "well the 1-2-4 second delay between lob/stab is you taking it out" is bull. You need to move your hand to the pouch that has your grenade, then open that pouch, then put both hands firmly on the grenade, arm it, and throw it with your good, throwing hand. This goes for Melee as well. You better be forced to switch to grenades/knives in PS2 like in PS1. Also. As someone said before. 333 vs 333 vs 333 on one continent (or something like that), lets say half of them are infantry. That means there are at least 500 grunts out there with grenades. It is NOT hard to imagine a squad of 20 guys throwing grenades at other squads of 20 guys in tight corridors. Grenades would be immensely overpowered as far as game balance if they started becoming true to life. Not because of the individual grenade, but that individual grenades 30-40 other buddies going with him at one time.
Grenades should not do immense amounts of damage, I'm quite happy with them now. Do you see how much armor we are wearing? Like really. Rexo's and MAXs are essentially futuristic EOD suits . Unless you're in your PJ's you are in enough armor to save you from most damage, and the Agile even has decent enough plating that shrap shouldn't really kill you
Knives. just throwing this out there, in general, Knives are actually really terribad killing devices in legitimate situations. From the experience of a firefighter/emt. I can tell you that most knife wounds I see are superficial at best, rarely do we get a full stabbing/throat slitting/lung puncture and or other Life threatening injury. I can only imagine trying to slit someone's throat in Planetside wearing all of my kit, gun, armor, etc, and getting through someone elses kit, armor, gun, etc and actually slicing their jugular or puncturing a lung/heart or hitting the spine. And upon retrospect, a chest wound would be even harder because in planetside we really, really love our breastplates.
I've never understood video game melee systems doing immense damage for swinging something that looks sharp in someones general direction. I understand the mechanics are impossible to replicate in game space, and since close quarter hand-to-hand fighting will probably never make a real appearance in video games it has to be simplified. But any sort of 1-hit knife kill will do the game no justice.
Rbstr
2011-07-10, 08:12 PM
Grenades should not do immense amounts of damage, I'm quite happy with them now. Do you see how much armor we are wearing? Like really. Rexo's and MAXs are essentially futuristic EOD suits . Unless you're in your PJ's you are in enough armor to save you from most damage, and the Agile even has decent enough plating that shrap shouldn't really kill you
This is a nonsence argument. Really, future armor is good?
How about future grenades? They've stagnated since the 21st century?
Grenades should do immense damage they're like mini-nukes now, ect.
You get what I mean?
In fact...armor has nearly always lagged behind our ability to destroy it.
I do agree with other things, I think knives and melee in general are often way more powerful than they should be in many, many games...But they've got a certain romance to them, which is why we see them.
I'm more of a fan of the pistol whip that pushes or stuns, rather than killing them.
CutterJohn
2011-07-10, 08:32 PM
The idea is that the one grenade can probably give you a kill far more easily than the rifle as you can throw it at the vague area in which the defense are an get a kill. Same with CoD you can blindly chuck 'nades here there and everywhere and get a kill, Planetsides 'nades actually filled their purpose effectively without the cheap instadeath.
Looking at bad company 2 leader boards..
1. 103k grenades thrown, 32k grenades hit, 4k grenade kills. 295k kills total
2. 56k thrown, 32k hit, 4.6k kills. 219k kills total.
3. 2k thrown, 1.5k hit, 550 kills. 72k kills total.
4. 125k thrown, 44k hit, 8k kills. 215k kills total.
5. 21k thrown, 8k hit, 2k kills. 244k kills total.
6. 82k thrown, 26k hit, 6k kills. 228k kills total
7. 52k thrown, 16k hit, 3.6k kills. 182k kills total.
8. 141k thrown, 51k hit, 7.4k kills. 169k kills total.
9. 10k thrown, 2.7k hit, 500 kills. 164k kills total.
10. 61k thrown, 20k hit, 5.4k kills. 186k kills total.
Should be a decently representative sample of the biggest killwhores in the game, who know all the tricks to maximize k/d and gain a huge score.
In total, they threw 653 thousand cheap instakill grenades. Of those, 233 thousand hit somebody. Of those, 42 thousand produced a kill. For simplicity, and lack of any other stats, we'll just assume 1 kill = 1 grenade.
35% of cheap, overpowered, instakill grenades thrown resulted in a hit.
18% of cheap, overpowered, instakill grenades that hit resulted in kills.
6% of cheap, overpowered, instakill grenades thrown resulted in kills.
2% of the top ten players kill counts are from cheap, overpowered, instakill grenades
Yes, PS2 is not Bad company 2. But PS2 is not PS1 either. And grenades can, as has been shown, be powerful, even instakill, and still do not even come close to resulting in a kill with every throw. Far from it. Those 150 players with 1 grenade each will, according to these stats, result in roughly 9 kills.
Instakill grenade + red alert = what the fuck am I playing.
2coolforu
2011-07-10, 08:36 PM
Looking at bad company 2 leader boards..
1. 103k grenades thrown, 32k grenades hit, 4k grenade kills. 295k kills total
2. 56k thrown, 32k hit, 4.6k kills. 219k kills total.
3. 2k thrown, 1.5k hit, 550 kills. 72k kills total.
4. 125k thrown, 44k hit, 8k kills. 215k kills total.
5. 21k thrown, 8k hit, 2k kills. 244k kills total.
6. 82k thrown, 26k hit, 6k kills. 228k kills total
7. 52k thrown, 16k hit, 3.6k kills. 182k kills total.
8. 141k thrown, 51k hit, 7.4k kills. 169k kills total.
9. 10k thrown, 2.7k hit, 500 kills. 164k kills total.
10. 61k thrown, 20k hit, 5.4k kills. 186k kills total.
Should be a decently representative sample of the biggest killwhores in the game, who know all the tricks to maximize k/d and gain a huge score.
In total, they threw 653 thousand cheap instakill grenades. Of those, 233 thousand hit somebody. Of those, 42 thousand produced a kill. For simplicity, and lack of any other stats, we'll just assume 1 kill = 1 grenade.
35% of cheap, overpowered, instakill grenades thrown resulted in a hit.
18% of cheap, overpowered, instakill grenades that hit resulted in kills.
6% of cheap, overpowered, instakill grenades thrown resulted in kills.
2% of the top ten players kill counts are from cheap, overpowered, instakill grenades
Yes, PS2 is not Bad company 2. But PS2 is not PS1 either. And grenades can, as has been shown, be powerful, even instakill, and still do not even come close to resulting in a kill with every throw.
Right, but no map on Bad Company comes close to representing the close quarters of a base fight or the numbers of a Planetside battle. On consoles there are 18 (?) people on a relatively huge and open map, on PC there are 32 on a relatively huge and open map. On Planetside we have possibly 1000 in a close and very cramped environment, play a game of CoD 4 and imagine that level of grenadewhoring in a Planetside environment.
Nothing is wrong with grenades as they are, they fill their role fine and if anything require a very small amount of fine tuning, perhaps a +/- 10% damage or splash radius.
Coyote
2011-07-10, 08:39 PM
Fair enough on the leaderboard from BC2. But how many of their kills are from headshots with sniper rifles :D
CutterJohn
2011-07-10, 08:51 PM
Right, but no map on Bad Company comes close to representing the close quarters of a base fight or the numbers of a Planetside battle. On consoles there are 18 (?) people on a relatively huge and open map, on PC there are 32 on a relatively huge and open map. On Planetside we have possibly 1000 in a close and very cramped environment, play a game of CoD 4 and imagine that level of grenadewhoring in a Planetside environment.
Nothing is wrong with grenades as they are, they fill their role fine and if anything require a very small amount of fine tuning, perhaps a +/- 10% damage or splash radius.
And in planetside 2 we have no idea what bases will be like. I'm not saying its a guaranteed good thing. I'm saying it should not be dismissed out of hand just because it would be bad in a game thats not PS2. A game that had some serious... quirks. If grenades are OP they can change two little numbers in a file and make them do half the damage and have twice the ammo count.
Plus they can do all sorts of weird things. Have a damage limit. Does 300 damage, whether theres 1 or 10 people near. If one, they die, if ten, they all lose 30 hp. Or arbitrarily reduce their effectiveness in cramped indoors areas. Call it an explosion dampening field. Leaves them powerful so they can be effective in the wide open outdoors, without being OP when theres a zerg inside a cramped base.
SKYeXile
2011-07-10, 08:58 PM
if they increase the games TTK, you will want grandes, or there wont be anyway of busting into a lobby(short of a MAX crash) because you would be getting 2 shot by campers.
Rbstr
2011-07-10, 09:02 PM
Oh god, increasing the TTK?
That's dumb enough to be funny.
2coolforu
2011-07-10, 09:03 PM
Right, but taking stats from 10 players is a horrendously small sample. Take the whole game at least
http://elxx.net/bfbc2/statscharts/weapons-1.png
The M60 was horrendously overpowered, hence why it has number 1 spot, yet even on the wide open sparsely populated maps of Bad Company the Hand Grenade is the 12th greatest killing weapon, in a game where there are quite a few guns. Interestingly the knife and 40mm grenade are up there which are both arguments against insta-gib grenades and one-hit-kill insta knifes.
Another graph
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1/10354/1338742-weapons_table_super.png
As you can see, like you said before 'only 2% of the kills are by grenades' therefore they must be balanced and are used a tiny fraction of the time. Well, the M60 only accounts for 7% of total kills! That's a tiny percentage, it must therefore be perfectly balanced. However from the graph you can see that 7% is a HUGE Proportion, even hand grenades are used more commonly than many main weapons like rifles and LMG's
CutterJohn
2011-07-10, 09:21 PM
As you can see, like you said before 'only 2% of the kills are by grenades' therefore they must be balanced and are used a tiny fraction of the time. Well, the M60 only accounts for 7% of total kills! That's a tiny percentage, it must therefore be perfectly balanced. However from the graph you can see that 7% is a HUGE Proportion, even hand grenades are used more commonly than many main weapons like rifles and LMG's
This graph isn't very useful. Its trying to compare a weapon used by all classes in all kits, vs a weapon used by 1 of 4 classes, and is 1 of 6 weapons used by that class. Obviously this will skew numbers badly.
A rough guesstimate from that graph shows about 64% of the kills by all classes are guns that shoot bullets, while 2% of the kills by all classes are grenades. Hand grenades get 3% of the kills guns do.
2coolforu
2011-07-10, 09:26 PM
This graph isn't very useful. Its trying to compare a weapon used by all classes in all kits, vs a weapon used by 1 of 4 classes, and is 1 of 6 weapons used by that class.
A valid comparison would be % of Medic kills that are from the M-60 vs the % of medic hand grenade kills while he has the m-60.
But you have to take this into consideration, grenades are available to everyone and they are going to be very proliferate on the battlefield which is why you want a Planetside 1 style grenade that is mainly used for infiltrators or softening up defenders.
Rbstr
2011-07-10, 09:26 PM
Your study is highly flawed:
Every class has grenades. Yet, it represents less percentage than the leading single-class weapon in every case.
The most apt comparison of weapons with range is the M1911 which all classes can use as well. Even it manages to kill more than nades, even with competition from other selectable pistols and the immensely useful tracer.
Even more telling is that the knife kills far and away more people, yet has no AOE and no range.
The 40mm, a single class weapon, far out-kills the standard grenade. In fact, half of the assault weapons kill more than a nade.
Your conclusion here holds no water.
Regardless, we can all agree that insta throw insta kill grenades would be broken in current ps.
Let's go back to discussing looting enemy shit.
2coolforu
2011-07-10, 09:33 PM
Right and in Planetside we have a Thumper which fires 6 grenades in a similar fashion to the hand grenade. There is a reason that 'nades didn't instagib in Planetside and that's because they were used to soften up defenders and because there were such larger scale and closer combat battles.
We know there are bases in Planetside 2, giving every class a couple of insta-kill frag grenades with even a moderately large blast radius is going to make defense an impossibility. Insta-kill infantry weapons, especially explosives ,have no place in large scale infantry combat, we already die fast enough from thumper weaponry and other infantry arms in Planetside 1 in a base hold.
Rbstr
2011-07-10, 09:42 PM
Why does "more powerful" always become insta-kill to you people? Fucking frustrating.
moosepoop
2011-07-10, 09:48 PM
without inventories players cant spam grenades anymore, or carry extra medic packs that unbalances the fight, which is good.
Effective
2011-07-10, 09:50 PM
I would much rather personally see the current inventory system kept (or even improved upon in some way), but that's just my personal take on it.
moosepoop
2011-07-10, 09:52 PM
in my opinion the current inventory system is redundant, and only benefits various types of spamming.
SKYeXile
2011-07-10, 09:53 PM
I would much rather personally see the current inventory system kept (or even improved upon in some way), but that's just my personal take on it.
if they scrap it i hope they make have some sort of system for looting ammo or greandes medapps and shit, or to give people ammo, it was always good in the original when you runout somebody could drop a box of ammo. (i remember dropping lots of ammo boxes out of my skeeter to people on towers)
but yea not been able to loot enemy weapons? so we drop on a tower...run out of ammo...cant loot anything because its all ammo used for the other empires weapons which we cant use eather and pullout our quickknifes?
Hamma
2011-07-10, 10:44 PM
For me personally I'd like to see inventories stay in PS2. They added an interesting aspect and allowed you to be a bit more versatile.
CutterJohn
2011-07-10, 10:57 PM
For me personally I'd like to see inventories stay in PS2. They added an interesting aspect and allowed you to be a bit more versatile.
Agreed. My ideal compromise would have been inventories, but for ammo and whatnot, not storing extra guns/tools/etc.
You could carry a REK, a CUD, an.. umm.. Engy tool, etc, just not all at once. Have the inventory for figuring out what spare ammo one is going to carry along, but limit the tools to the slots alone.
Still, no inventories isn't all bad. I do hope we get to alter ammo amounts in some fashion, but so long as I can swap guns around I'll be happy.
i found the old inventory system to be tedious, i would like it simplified while still allowing for customization. removing looting is removing a feature that has been common in multiplayer shooters for over a decade, i thought they were trying to make ps2 more mainstream.
Desoxy
2011-07-12, 03:41 PM
i found the old inventory system to be tedious, i would like it simplified while still allowing for customization.
I am right there with you, it was fun at first, but after some time it got tedious.
The system could for instance be weight based - ammo/grenades/medkits/other class specific gadgets each have a specific weight and per class/armor you have a total weight that you cannot exceed (maybe even limit things like frag grenade to two per soldier or whatever). That should allow for customization while not having to deal with an "inventory" per se. Whatever the devs decide to roll with I am confident they will have considered all other options..
I also like that they impose limits to class-specific weapons and tools. Otherwise you have to make sure that everything is not too powerful when combined with anything else which in the end tends to water down the whole arsenal.
Malorn
2011-07-12, 04:33 PM
Jumping in late to this one but I can easily see how Looting does in fact make more of a balance nightmare.
One thing that jumped out at me is that they want to make the empires a lot more distinct in PS2 and shape empire weaponry and vehicles around the theme and style of the empire. They can balance that empire not by individual weapons but on the bigger picture. However, if you add in weapons and vehicles from other empires you change the picture, and by mixing & matching you could come up with some OP combinations that were not intended to be used together.
One example would be mixing in NC guerilla tactical weapons with TR weapons that may be of a more supressive nature. The two would not be balanced with the expectation that a squad is using both and the combination could prove to be cheesy and far more effective than with the empire's intended complimentary weaponry.
I also like the idea of keeping the empires distinct and unique by not polluting them with weapons and vehicles from other emipres. Though I do admit it was fun jumping into one of those other empire vehicles from time to time. It does change the dynamics though.
But the balance ease should be obvious - less combinations means less variables to consider and an easier time balancing.
But you rarely got weapons from other empires. It's not like you could go to your terminal and pull a jackhammer on TR.
Desoxy
2011-07-12, 04:41 PM
But you rarely got weapons from other empires. It's not like you could go to your terminal and pull a jackhammer on TR.
All the more reason not to waste development resources making sure it's not overpowered.. :)
Valdae
2011-07-12, 04:45 PM
They said they don't want to implement looting incase of unbalancing issues, but how many times was this a problem in PS1? Of all the times I got killed in PS1 it was rarely by someone with a weapon not from their empire. Even if they DID use a weapon from another empire, they still had to make the effort to continually stockpile ammo from corpses.
This issue is making me think that the dev team has plans which could make looting unbalanced, like Empire-specific perks.
Its a shame really cause I liked the versatility of having different AV weapons in my locker for different situations. And the idea of not being able to loot more ammo, a medikit or even a new gun from a dead grunt really sucks. Hell, I remember seeing a VS MAX fly up to each level of a tower to disperse medikits to the soldiers who were trapped there. Now thats awesome.
All the more reason not to waste development resources making sure it's not overpowered.. :)
What are you talking about?
Malorn
2011-07-12, 04:50 PM
But you rarely got weapons from other empires. It's not like you could go to your terminal and pull a jackhammer on TR.
I think everyone in my outfit had a locker full of other empire's HA weapons.
I knew some folks that would exclusively use other empire's HAs. They'd loot 'em and store 'em on every opportunity and use them very frequently.
I think everyone in my outfit had a locker full of other empire's HA weapons.
I knew some folks that would exclusively use other empire's HAs. They'd loot 'em and store 'em on every opportunity and use them very frequently.
I did too but I only used them during ToDs or interfarms. I don't recall ever hearing anyone get angry that the VS were using jackhammers.
Valdae
2011-07-12, 05:12 PM
I did too but I only used them during ToDs or interfarms. I don't recall ever hearing anyone get angry that the VS were using jackhammers.
The only weapons that added tactical versatility were AV weapons. Some performed better in different situations, and I thought that added to the fun of the game.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.