How do you feel about the idea of class systems and no free-form inventory? - Page 4

Vash02 · 2012-01-18, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

So wait... you're okay with weapons and equipment being so expensive the "freedom" of choice is extremely limited, and only limited to those few choices for the characters life, but allowing anyone access to anything, only the equipment they have access to is pre-emptively sectioned into classes is killing the freedom of choice?

There's far more free form choice in picking to be a medic, an engi, or a heavy weapons guy when one deems them necessary than there is in taking HA, med, and Rexo, and only ever having access to those because you no longer have other cert points to spend for anything else because you're capped.

And there will be specialists. Make no mistake. The skill training system encourages players to work on a tree or trees that support their preferred play style, none of which are likely to be fully trained by the end of the month according to SOE's prior claims.

The old system was archaic, and simple. There was no depth to it.

You can reassign cert points, they are not fixed in place permantly.

Qwan · 2012-01-18, 02:03 PM

I just hope that there cert system, isnt set up like BF3, from what im reading thats what it sounds like. I have a choice of what class i wanna be before i spawn, as i lvl up that class, I can then unlock certain skills right, is that what im hearing.

Raymac · 2012-01-18, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

yay quote mined! next time take the full sentence and not the just the parts that are convenient to your point.

the point is even if the tank is a 2 man vehicle, being AA and AV, (who would want AI when AV will explode infantry just as well) its a one tank army.
I also could make the claim that no one could try be a one man army in PS1 with a lasher in my hands.

I did quote the full sentence. I didn't cherry pick. I'm not trying to be a jerk, so please correct me if I was wrong. It appeared that your point was that the arguement that the new class system promotes teamwork is diminshed by tank pilots controlling the main gun. Your further clarification of 2-man tank crews being 1-man armies does sound like a contradiction to me. I know what you mean, but you can see why that arguement doesn't hold water for me.

Also to your point about the certs...

Originally Posted by Raymac

You make a good point, but for the sake of debate, let's say HA costs 16 pts and AV costs 16 pts. That means you would be locked in to 1 or the other forever. You would never get to try the other weapon out. So to fix that, you have a cert wipe or sell it back like in PS1, but you are still locked in for a full day or 12 hours or however long you need to make it so is effective.

I prefer a system where you can switch whenever you want, but you still can't do them all at the same time. It gives players much more freedom while still removing the 1-man army default loadout problem.

So even if you can reassign them just like in PS1, you are still going to be locked in for a substantial amount of time.

Vash02 · 2012-01-18, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

I did quote the full sentence. I didn't cherry pick. I'm not trying to be a jerk, so please correct me if I was wrong. It appeared that your point was that the arguement that the new class system promotes teamwork is diminshed by tank pilots controlling the main gun. Your further clarification of 2-man tank crews being 1-man armies does sound like a contradiction to me. I know what you mean, but you can see why that arguement doesn't hold water for me.

Sorry you did quote me in full, my brain skips over my own words sometimes.
What I meant to say that restricting infantry to classes while allowing single tanks to have both AV and AA/AV/AI is a contradiction in their stated aims to improve teamwork.

So even if you can reassign them just like in PS1, you are still going to be locked in for a substantial amount of time.

You can make a different character then, just as you would in PS1. Though I'm not sure how PS2's character limits are going to work.

Sirisian · 2012-01-18, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Qwan

I just hope that there cert system, isnt set up like BF3, from what im reading thats what it sounds like. I have a choice of what class i wanna be before i spawn, as i lvl up that class, I can then unlock certain skills right, is that what im hearing.

You have a choice when you spawn, but you can also change your class by going to a terminal. You do not "level" up a class. You level up your player and with that you can choose to train skills below your level that unlock. It is a very similar system with a few things in place to make it a more drawn out process. As a F2P game they needed a system that will keep people playing for a long time. You train faster when you play. The exact details of how that works hasn't been explained.

I only play BF3 a few days during the beta. Their unlock system was identical to the BF 2142 system that worked alright. The whole idea is that as you play you unlock things so the game continues to be fun instead of getting stale. There sidegrades concept in theory is designed to keep players from feeling like they're unlocking advantages. It's an interesting concept. You kind of have to put yourself in their shoes and think of a way to keep people playing while keeping in mind that the upgrade model is extremely powerful and can keep most gamers addicted for a longer time than if you just give them everything at the start.

Raymac · 2012-01-18, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

You can make a different character then, just as you would in PS1. Though I'm not sure how PS2's character limits are going to work.

I don't think making an alt and splitting your stats and creating a whole new name, etc. is a better solution though.

Plus, then you have to take the time to log out and log back in, spend time going all the way back to the fight, and joining back up with your squad. Then by the time you do all that, you may not need AV. So you log back out to switch back to your HA character? No thanks. Classes that you can switch at a terminal are a much cleaner solution I think.

Vash02 · 2012-01-18, 04:09 PM

Well its what you pay for when you specialise too much.

texico · 2012-01-18, 04:11 PM

I think my point with the inventory was more to do with being able to store and manipulate items. The mechanics of that don't necessarily have to be attached to your holsters and ammo slots, but somehow you should be able to have storage space - customizing a backpack on to your character maybe. The reason is that manipulating items and equipment was a skill in itself, but it was also very interactive with the environment and with the battle. Online games like Halo 1 didn't feel like you had interactions with the environment or battle beyond you firing. You couldn't pick up equipment (besides weapons), you couldn't manipulate ammo, you couldn't store extra equipment in places (vehicles), you couldn't make strategic decisions about what you would carry, you couldn't share equipment you had with others... you could do all these things in PS1 simply because you had an inventory, and it felt very interactive with the environment and other people around you, and I think PS2 could have expanded on that, but at the very least preserved it. Perhaps the way inventory storage was also directly attached to your combat slowed thing downs or was irritating but they can easily be two separate mechanics. And maybe this is somehow achieved in a different way, but I don't know how (using items as a gameplay mechanic obviously requires people to be able to store and manipulate them).

Back on classes. I understand that the one-man army may have been a problem because not only was it clearly the most advantageous way to play but it was also widespread. But it was only a problem that people could do everything. It was never a problem that people could do multiple things. For example, I keep going back to the cloaking point (because that's the one we actually have a quote from). TRay clearly states "medics heal, cloakers hide." It's pretty clear that people are going to be restricted to their roles while they're in-battle.

But I don't think it was really a problem that cloakers could heal and lay mines. It was a problem that a soldier in a tower could use Rexo, HA, AV, Medical, Engineering, MA and SA. But it wasn't a problem that one could use HA, Medical and Engineering because they'd still depend on people for AV. As long as any one person can't do everything at once, I don't see why they can't fulfill multiple roles (lets say 2, or 3).

As I've said, I still think the best route would be to give benefits to those who choose to specialize (for example, maybe certificates that stick to one skill tree cost 1 cert-point, whereas once players start having certificates in multiple skill trees those certificates cost 2 cert-points, and so players trying to generalize too much can only have access to half as many certificates on their character, or maybe characters with specialized certs earn twice as much xp and can move down trees faster).

However, if classes have to stick, I think you should be able to fulfill multiple classes at once (2 or 3), so at least that way you can decide how you need to combine your 3 classes for what you need to achieve and who's available to support you where your short. In that instance, a cloaker can still heal themselves and place CE but can't hack.

Remember, while it's true that specialization is good to be encourage in front line battles, it's not entirely true of everything. Some classes need to be self-sustaining. Cloakers can't depend on friendlies to heal them who can compromise their position, or people to hack terminals for them. Lone snipers can't depend on somebody else laying mines for them to protect them from vehicles. If there was a scout-style class, the same would apply. Some roles need self-sustaining. And then, even in the battlefield, depending on others isn't always a good thing and can be a quick way to frustration, like the Medic in TF2 who abandons healing you to heal that heavy, or the one who tries to heal you when you're disguised as an enemy, or the engineer who moves destroys his sentry that was the only thing stopping the enemy coming and killing you.

I don't think that soldiers should be completely self-sufficient and able to do everything, but I think that should be at least 50%-75% self-sufficient if that's how they choose to set themselves up.

SKYeXile · 2012-01-18, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

Like what? HA costs 8 points, AV 6 points, engi 6 points, med 6 points and rexo 4 points? MA might still cost 2 by the way.

The definition of a "one man army" WAS the rexo/ha/av/med/engi set up, which was done with a mere 18 points. I can't wear all that when piloting an aircraft or a tank, they brought their own restrictions by default.

At BR20, players had 23 cert points. That's easily one or two additional weapon and/or vehicle certs, depending on costs.

2 = MA
4 = HA
3 = AV
3 = Engi
3 = Med
3 = Rexo

+3 = Sniper
+2 = Quad

There, completely self reliable. That's the one many army.

Classes are intended to section all that, so that no one can be a one man army.

God forbid we make a game where people are self reliant and teamwork is based of tactics and focus firing and not reliance on each other for heals, it was a great thing about planetside, if you're better than 5 people, you kill them all... at once..provided you have an MCG or JH... not have to run because your classes hard counter is coming and there is shit all you can do about stopping it.

i also dont see what the class system is going to solve when everybody is going to have access to EVERY VEHICLE, there is no need for a engi tool andyou likely self heal, and you can change at an instance to anything you like a terminal, you will see assaults running around with nothing short of a SMG/AV, i guarantee it.

without a limitation to how many vehicles you can operate, limits on the amount of classes you can use and how many specialisations into those classes you can have access to at one time i cant see it been much better.

Shade Millith · 2012-01-18, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

The old system was a train wreck. All certs did was grant you access to the same $#!% everyone else had access to. A reaver was a reaver. Every time. It just came down to if someone wanted a reaver or not.

This was one of the biggest draws of PS1 for me.

This is a FPS, not an RPG. If two guys held a gun, they would always be equal. I liked not having +10 Accuracy, +5 Damage. If I wanted that, I'd start playing WOW, and stock up on +30 Fire Damage equipment for my Mage.

Direct upgrades in power are just wrong in an FPS, it should be about skill. Sidegrades (Trading accuracy for damage, or vice versa) are fine, but no upgrades.

EASyEightyEight · 2012-01-18, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

God forbid we make a game where people are self reliant and teamwork is based of tactics and focus firing and not reliance on each other for heals, it was a great thing about planetside, if you're better than 5 people, you kill them all... at once..provided you have an MCG or JH... not have to run because your classes hard counter is coming and there is shit all you can do about stopping it.

i also dont see what the class system is going to solve when everybody is going to have access to EVERY VEHICLE, there is no need for a engi tool andyou likely self heal, and you can change at an instance to anything you like a terminal, you will see assaults running around with nothing short of a SMG/AV, i guarantee it.

without a limitation to how many vehicles you can operate, limits on the amount of classes you can use and how many specialisations into those classes you can have access to at one time i cant see it been much better.

You're looking at it poorly.

Consider you're on the field, and X comes at you in a reaver. You kill the reaver. A few moments later, Y comes up to you in a tank, and since you're equipped to handle tanks, you successfully destroy his dumb ass. Then Z comes up with a minigun and a big ol' suit of armor, and you own even him pretty hard.

Can you guess whom X, Y, and Z are?

The exact. Same. Person.

Once we're playing the game, we won't be concerning ourselves with remembering every single individual on the battlefield, and what they can do. There should be too many individuals to even bother. What you can count on is that if you bring an abundance of aircraft, expect a whole lot of AA to counter that without anything on your end to counter the AA. It's a more dynamic combined arms.

More importantly, it doesn't change your perception of every target on the field being it's own, individual entity.

So stop worrying about the fact that everyone can do everything. You can too, and they don't fucking care. At least... the non-vets don't.

Raymac · 2012-01-18, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Shade Millith

This was one of the biggest draws of PS1 for me.

This is a FPS, not an RPG. If two guys held a gun, they would always be equal. I liked not having +10 Accuracy, +5 Damage. If I wanted that, I'd start playing WOW, and stock up on +30 Fire Damage equipment for my Mage.

Direct upgrades in power are just wrong in an FPS, it should be about skill. Sidegrades (Trading accuracy for damage, or vice versa) are fine, but no upgrades.

While it's a bit early to speak with much certainty about the sidegrades / upgrades, I think it's a bit over the top to start saying it will be WoW. It's an FPS. You're not going to have Auto-Attack. Plus, we did have types of upgrades in PS1. Take for example a player that has the Personal Shield or 2nd Wind implant versus someone that hasn't unlocked it yet because they were under BR6. That was a fairly large advantage.

dsi · 2012-01-18, 09:22 PM

The lack of customization is a terrible thing in Tribes: Ascend, hopefully it isn't so in PS2 as well. Classes can co-exist with an inventory system, why shouldn't I be able to scour bodies on the field to assist me/my allies?

CutterJohn · 2012-01-18, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Shade Millith

This was one of the biggest draws of PS1 for me.

This is a FPS, not an RPG. If two guys held a gun, they would always be equal. I liked not having +10 Accuracy, +5 Damage. If I wanted that, I'd start playing WOW, and stock up on +30 Fire Damage equipment for my Mage.

Direct upgrades in power are just wrong in an FPS, it should be about skill. Sidegrades (Trading accuracy for damage, or vice versa) are fine, but no upgrades.

Sure, but they won't be giving us +10 damage. We'll be unlocking a barrel or ammo upgrade that gives +1 damage. At which point its no longer the same gun. Same effect as HA vs MA.

Originally Posted by dsi

The lack of customization is a terrible thing in Tribes: Ascend, hopefully it isn't so in PS2 as well. Classes can co-exist with an inventory system, why shouldn't I be able to scour bodies on the field to assist me/my allies?

Classes will coexist with some sort of inventory system. You'll still have a choice of what weapon to use, what to upgrade the weapon with, and what equipment to use. It just won't be a freeform MMO inventory, and will have some restrictions.

Shade Millith · 2012-01-19, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Sure, but they won't be giving us +10 damage. We'll be unlocking a barrel or ammo upgrade that gives +1 damage. At which point its no longer the same gun. Same effect as HA vs MA.

MA was longer range and more accurate.

HA had higher damage.

Two different weapons for different situations. One wasn't just simply 'better' than the other. I would even consider the Suppressor as a sidegrade. It had less power then MA, but had even higher accuracy.

What I don't want is two players (In the field, so using MA), having a show down, but ones MA simply does 5 damage more per hit because he's been playing longer. Keep the weapons equal, no matter who you are (Or side grade), and keep the game to who's better. Not who's been playing longer.