implications of two weapons vs. three

ok, so anyway....the 8 weapons...

Disk Launcher
Burner
Chaingun
Grenade Launcher
Mortar (presumably)
Rocket Pod
??
??

That leaves two weapons we dont know about.

Blaster

and an ELF type?

I am betting that the elf doesnt make an appearance in T:V.

And I bet there are going to be 7 base weapons + 1 special weapon for each armor for a total of 10. That would make KP's statistics truly correct, because then each armor class would have a choice of 8 weapons. Otherwise each armor class only has 6 weapons available to them and his statistics are no longer correct.

i just thought it was a fun idea to throw around


and as for the people who just say no.. you're not thinking about the reasons behind it



the main reason i had this idea was to get different weapons in the main combat setup. If you play on any of the "better" t2 classic servers, there are just the same weapons being used over and over again. The idea was really just to get people to not all have the same weapons, thus giving more strategy to think about according to what you are doing.

i completely see your point of view with the possibilities, but that still makes the same weapons really show up over and over again.. having 2 slots lowers the percentage of having the same weapons show up in every fight. My entire reasoning was that it'd be fun for some different situations, mainly due to the fact that all you ever really see is someone cloaking (rare), a basic light, a sniper or HO (the rest are so rare that they're not worth mentioning). Having 2 weapons would cause people to try newer things in hopes of getting an advantage

i knew it wasnt going to change far before i started the thread, but it was interesting to see if you had thought of it

How would having fewer weapons force people to try new things?

I would think it would be quite the opposite. You cant fit a square peg in a round hole. You cant screw a bolt in place with a hammer. Likewise, you also cant use a chaingun to clear a HoF. If a player doesnt have the proper tool for a job, he will just not do it.

a chaingun could very easily get rid of a HoF if used correctly

its just the difference in tactics... personally i would knock him off with grenades and discs

for example, if you had chain and a disc, you'd have a much bigger advantage the second i went in the air.. but because i had grenades i would have a bigger advantage the second you hit the ground

about the trying new things... im not sure why i said that :-|

2 weapons for the light is an interesting idea

kp you logic works for weapon choice, but not for tactical choice

i think that's a more important conisderation than weapon loadout combinations.

a chaingun could very easily get rid of a HoF if used correctly

ummmm....how?

interesting KP, can you explain the second post what the brackets are in the end, and was it taken into account certain type restrictions, such as lights cant carry inv's etc?
Ah yes, those are numbers without considering deployables. And no, although I took armor restrictions into account for weapons, I don't think I took them into account for deployables. Good eye. =)
KP

kp you logic works for weapon choice, but not for tactical choice

i think that's a more important conisderation than weapon loadout combinations.
What do you mean?
KP

oh cr*p they might moderate me :[

ahhh should have picked that.

thats really interesting in both cases T2 has around 4 times the number of choices that T1 has, and yet it seems that while there is more variation between the way teams play mathes/certain maps in T2, it does not seem to correspond with the magnitude that is possible.

i think that overtime strats become publiclly known, so for the first part of T:V teams that have the best ideas will win, but once teams all become aware of what works and doesnt it becomes more about teams coordination/individual players.

Oh I donno, there's a lot more variety in T2 than there is in T1 so it does correspond I'd say... of course there will always be things that aren't used in certain situations.

What do you mean?
KP
No, I was actually wrong you have the right idea.

Interesting analysis, I wouldn't have thought of looking at the problem the way you did.

Yes, I as well hope the Elf gun has gone the way of the dodo. It was just plain useless in almost every situation. Sure it worked well in a limited number of situations, but the frequency of those situations was so rare that noone ever carried it. Maybe they ended up regretting it later, but by the time you ran to go get the ELF the problem was solved; be it a sensor's shield down or a HoF's dead in the base. ELF was just a waste of a weapon slot, sorry.

What do you mean?
KP

having 2 weapons really changes the tactics in things

you cant really just "scrape by" in most situations because of a myriad of weapons.. you really need to plan out ahead

its really the same idea as a sniper (generally disc, chain, laser)vs a duel setup (disc, chain, gernade)

the second the player in the "duel" setup gets within gernade range, he's going to have a big advantage over the sniper, who only has chain and a disc to use in a fight. there are plenty of times i've seen people try to snipe in duels, but overall its a bad decision.

the skill based elements let you slip by on most occasions, this just livens that up a bit

KP, the math stuff is all well and good, but there are factors in choosing a weapon beyond simple "it's there".

Consider:

A light with three weapons slots, who plans on playing Light D/Chaser decides from these weapons: Plasma Gun, Chain, Disc, Nader, Laser.

Disc is a given, I've never seen a LD without it. The other two depend on what type of terrain he's got to work with and how he's positioned usually, as well as personal preference.

If he's a crack shot with a laser, he'd probably take that, or an accomplished CG whore, that. The third slot would probably go to one of the above or the Grenade launcher.

The Plasma isn't even considered because it's not a weapon that sees a lot of use by lights, simply because of it's limitations.

It MAY be considered by LO, but even then only as a specialty weapon for equipment destruction, it rarely sees use against players.

If a Light with 2 slots to spend chose between those weapons, the choice would be a lot more difficult, and depend a lot more on your skills with the weapons you have. You won't be able to just join in the whoring if you don't have a CG... but if you don't have your nader, and you're only guy with a chance of taking him down, you might not be able to do it with an Disc and CG.

Three weapon slots allow MUCH more flexability in weapon loadouts (50% weapon numbers flex, perhaps 100%+ weapon effectiveness flex). If you're faced with a lot of 2 weapon disc/chain LD as a capper, you know to stay low and fast... if you've got a lot of 2 weapon disc/nader LD, you know to play superman. Having the 2 weapon light can sort of shift the O/D balance a little twoard the O side, unless the team is very good, and balanced in weapons as well.

KP, the math stuff is all well and good, but there are factors in choosing a weapon beyond simple "it's there".

Consider:

A light with three weapons slots, who plans on playing Light D/Chaser decides from these weapons: Plasma Gun, Chain, Disc, Nader, Laser.

Disc is a given, I've never seen a LD without it. The other two depend on what type of terrain he's got to work with and how he's positioned usually, as well as personal preference.

If he's a crack shot with a laser, he'd probably take that, or an accomplished CG whore, that. The third slot would probably go to one of the above or the Grenade launcher.

The Plasma isn't even considered because it's not a weapon that sees a lot of use by lights, simply because of it's limitations.

It MAY be considered by LO, but even then only as a specialty weapon for equipment destruction, it rarely sees use against players.

If a Light with 2 slots to spend chose between those weapons, the choice would be a lot more difficult, and depend a lot more on your skills with the weapons you have. You won't be able to just join in the whoring if you don't have a CG... but if you don't have your nader, and you're only guy with a chance of taking him down, you might not be able to do it with an Disc and CG.

Three weapon slots allow MUCH more flexability in weapon loadouts (50% weapon numbers flex, perhaps 100%+ weapon effectiveness flex). If you're faced with a lot of 2 weapon disc/chain LD as a capper, you know to stay low and fast... if you've got a lot of 2 weapon disc/nader LD, you know to play superman. Having the 2 weapon light can sort of shift the O/D balance a little twoard the O side, unless the team is very good, and balanced in weapons as well.


i wpildnt be able to explain it better myselfd

KP, the math stuff is all well and good, but there are factors in choosing a weapon beyond simple "it's there".
Sure, but the maths aren't supposed to describe the process of choosing a weapon for a particular purpose. They're supposed to describe the contraints (or lack thereof) faced by players who are choosing a role or class or purpose given a certain set of generalized inputs (number of slots, number of weapons).

The specifics of the weapons themselves, while interesting, aren't really part of that. It's assumed that each weapon brings its own valuable twist to the game (which is a reasonable goal but easier said than done),
KP

Once we've given you info on all of the weapons Ed, KP, and the rest of the guys at Irrational have come up with, I think you'll see that weapon choice is going to be much more difficult than it was before. Regardless of number of choices.

My personal preference is for 2 weapons for the light, but that's not something that I'm going to make the decision on. I'll leave that entirely up to the design team.

Once we've given you info on all of the weapons Ed, KP, and the rest of the guys at Irrational have come up with, I think you'll see that weapon choice is going to be much more difficult than it was before. Regardless of number of choices. :bigthumb: That's good to hear.