For all of you who like reading
and I mean REALLY like reading
previous topic got locked, lol, should’ve expected that, did it anyways.
I have exhausted my argumentation abilities. Since you peoples don’t all play that game (as far as I know), tell me, were they sound, or is it my own fault that I am being met with mostly ignorance?
Dussan last edited by
Shitty game is shitty.
That’s all i ever say.
And the fanbases are almost always even worse then the game.
TheNarrator last edited by
I don’t have the time to read through all of it atm, but I skimmed through some of the posts. I’m definitely on your side on this, I hate persistent leveling. On the other hand side, I don’t think you should become as enraged about this as you are, and imho you definitely don’t have the right to call them retards or whatever. From what I’ve read, most forumers were simply stating their opinion and backing it up with arguments. Arguments that seem quite ridiculous to either of us, I agree, but I got the impression that most of them actually did make an effort to put together coherent and structured posts. They weren’t flaming and, to be honest, I find the tone of your more recent posts more aggressive than the tone of theirs, with the exception of Dark Pulse, who is trying too hard to sound badass.
The thing is, they have an opinion that you don’t agree with. If they would criticise you simply because you question their ideas, then you’d have the right to call them idiots. Now you don’t, in my opinion: they are being reasonably polite and sensible, from what I’ve read. As much as I understand that you get frustrated by this, the only thing you can blame them for is having different personal preferences than you, which doesn’t necessarily say anything about their intelligence.
I apologise if I missed something, I didn’t read through it all and don’t know much about that game, feel free to point it out if I missed something essential.
Martin last edited by
It seems like you’re trying to hammer the point that ranks/exp/unlocks etc are naturally unbalanced and you want everyone else to think your correct, when in fact, you’re both correct and wrong at the same time, or neither, whichever viewpoint rocks your boat.
There are so many possible implementations that some developers deliberately create systems where more game-time means better equipment and perks and some games do it to provide a base of character development, where essentially it eases you into the game in the short term and then sets you free for purely aesthetic personal development and allows you to choose your own play style; at the end of the day, that’s how the game was designed and developers aren’t stupid for not understanding your so called ‘logic’.
Let me give an example of one such implementation, Bad Company 2. BC2 has one of the best exp/unlock systems I’ve personally seen in games I’ve played or watched. You start out with a few basic weapons, and as you learn how to play a particular class, sniper for example, you start unlocking different equipment such as c4, different variations of rifles etc; then when you’ve unlocked them all, everyone has a favourite weapon, in fact, my favourite pistol is the first one you’re given and other’s favourites are the revolver, or the Colt 45. Each unlock is not a better weapon, it’s just an alternative weapon. At around level 20 or so, maybe even before, if you’ve played all classes and unlocked all weapons, you continue simply just levelling and all that is then is a visual indicator of how much ‘experience’ you’ve lapped up. You don’t earn starting-pistol-v2 that just has more damage for example, for playing the game x amount of time, because then obviously, that would be classed as unfair between two players if one had v2 and one didn’t.
Imagine if you apply the above system to Age of Chivalry. Take the Archer, you start with the basic Longbow. A few kills later after playing with the weapon, you unlock the Crossbow, if you continue with the Longbow because you’ve decided you don’t like the Crossbow (or the Xbow if you do), you might unlock the Javelin, and even more weapons if applicable or added later. What this system is doing is easing you into the game and encouraging you to try out each weapon. It’s not unbalanced, because balance would be created based on every weapon being available, not what is unlocked over time and who has the most hours of gameplay. What’s comes after the unlocks is essentially just bragging rights ‘I have a KD ratio of 4:1 so I’m a Commander and you’re just a Peasant lulz’. Again, following the previous example, if x player played 2000 hours and unlocked ‘bigger bolts’ (or whatever, doesn’t really matter), then it becomes unbalanced because what dictates a fight between two Archers w/ Crossbows is then the amount of playtime, as well as some skill.
Absolutely nothing in the aforementioned system dictates a fight between two Archers w/ Xbows apart from skill only. If you were to then argue that a player with 300 kills with the Crossbow has an advantage over an Archer with 200 kills and only Longbow access, then what you’ll actually be arguing over is the balance between the two weapons which would be an entirely different issue, not between the players. It may also be that the game was actually designed where one weapon is designed to counter another, in which case, it’s not an unbalance, but a design decision.
Ultimately, I’d be happy playing any game with a system such as BC2’s, but if you play a game like Runescape, you’re forced to play more if you want to be better, so much so it just becomes a frustration, grind-fest and like a second job. Some people like it, some don’t. No single person is correct.
FPS = not MMORPG. Please.
Blaine, That game works with a different health system. At higher levels, you get more specialized unlocks. You have 2 (of any) weapon slots and 2 equipment slots. You have shield and armor.
You could use the starter equipment that does equal 20 damage to shields and 20 to armor. Later equipment gives you, for example, 30 damage to shields and 10 to armor (EMP) or 10 vs shields and 30 vs armor (incendiary).
You could shoot somebody with the basic stuff for a nice 20 damage and kill them this way.
Or you could equip an EMP and an incendiary weapon (Mostly unlocks). Kill the shields with the EMP, swap weapon, use the incendiary to burn away the armor.
You can equip ‘perks’. You start out with 10 slots, end up with 14 at level 100. 1 perk = roughly 5% effectiveness bonus. The fire resistance unlock is a high-level one, for example.
What I’m having a LOT of trouble convincing these people is, a lower level and higher level fighting each other (Lower with 10 slots and higher with 14) with the exact same build: EMP weapon and incendiary weapon - but the higher level has 4 more slots, which he’s put into fire resistance.
They are of equal skill. But the higher level has now got ~40% fire resistance. The shield part of the fight goes equally, but the armor part the higher level wins.
Also, in BC2, you need to level for quite some hours to unlock the magnum ammo (1.25x bullet damage)/explosive upgrade (1.25x explosive damage)/body armor (1.25x max health) perks. Granted, you could only have one of these active at a time, but in a firefight, they work as 1.25 effectiveness modifiers. This effect was really noticeable to me - People could gun me down faster than I could kill them.
Different weapons in BC2? Lol M146/An-94 are the best assault rifles, Gol (No sway)/M95 (Higher minimum damage and longer range) the best snipers (Although snipers are the most balanced of the weapons), SMG’s I don’t know since I barely play engineer, the LMG section is reasonably balanced although the MG42 is quite weak unless you use it like a shotgun.
Also, the pump shotties can easily be abused if you do this little trick:
1 (select shotgun)
2 (select handgun/tracer gun)
1 (select shotgun)
When doing this with the NS2000 + slugs… Well, I get called cheater often, and I wonder if quickswitching with the shotgun is fair or not. It does consume a lot of ammo.
In BC2: Vietnam, in Rush, the defenders don’t even get a single mounted machine gun to defend themselves. Regular weapons do little damage to a Huey, and the RPG missiles are just way too slow without any lock-on feature. Therefore, on Rush maps with a Huey for the attackers, playing defender is basically trying not to get mowed down all the time by that annoying helicopter.
Why would you force players to use a specific weapon first? Really, if I have such dead aim I only need one shot, why would I not be allowed to use the crossbow immediately? Diversity in your equipment means being capable or adapting to different situations. Limited equipment = limited adaptibility, especially in a game such as Section 8: Prejudice.
Also, Section 8: Prejudice uses Games for Windows Live. A service almost famous for sucking. One of the things it does very well is forget your in-game progress.
I just don’t get why you would force people to use other equipment first, if they can just pick their own stuff to get familiar with. Surely, if I want to be a javelineer, you aren’t going to say “No you can’t, you need to be an archer for x hours first”, are you?
I AT-4 blackhawks like they’re clay pigeons.
Martin last edited by
It’s just design decisions. Unlockables/perks and whatever else are more popular nowadays as they introduce a level of character development and add depth to the game when you first play it. They ease you in and are almost mini tutorials if you like, introducing new aspects over time rather than throwing you in at the deep end. Everyone has access to everything in the end, and only the user is responsible for how long it takes to get them.
If you really despise it that much, just don’t play the games that focus on character development.