RegisteredFruit
Veteran X
They really need to unblock the "A-word"
Thrax speaks in VUGames T:V forum
- Thread starter Hansel
- Start date
- Status
azz
FIXED!@
FIXED!@
The Pumpkin King
Veteran XX
Yes, but your awefully brash to a.s.s.ume that you can go about mixing and matching the #'s of weapons each armor type can carry. If you enter in the wrong combonation the 4 horsemen of the apocolypse will come through the sky and reign famine and holy terror on earth. They will cause full out widespread terror by knocking out all our chain restaurants. I think your overlooking the seriousness in this critical game threatening issue.
This is why in order to be safe, you must go with my suggestion of the weapon combonation 1-800-FORGIRL
This is no time for being silly.
This is why in order to be safe, you must go with my suggestion of the weapon combonation 1-800-FORGIRL
This is no time for being silly.
VaporTrail
Veteran X
Personally I always thought the light was over effective because it was more mobile, and yet could carry enough weaponry to make it hugely versitile.
I would say a 2-3-4 system would limit the light to specific roles (LD: Disc-chain, Snipe LD: Laser-Disc, Chaser: Disc-nader, LO: Disc-nader/burner.) rather than having a single light cover more than one role (eg. Snipe LD/Chaser: Disc-nader-laser,) with a single loadout. You could cover LD/Chaser with medium (Disc-chain-nader) but you lose some of the speed and mobility that the light offers. The heavy has the highest armor, the highest firepower, but is the equivilent of a giant ground sloth compared to the light.
"Because this is how it always has been" isn't a valid reason to prevent change.
"Because it works" is a good reason, and currently the evidence shows that a 3 wepon light is possibly a little too flexible.
I would say a 2-3-4 system would limit the light to specific roles (LD: Disc-chain, Snipe LD: Laser-Disc, Chaser: Disc-nader, LO: Disc-nader/burner.) rather than having a single light cover more than one role (eg. Snipe LD/Chaser: Disc-nader-laser,) with a single loadout. You could cover LD/Chaser with medium (Disc-chain-nader) but you lose some of the speed and mobility that the light offers. The heavy has the highest armor, the highest firepower, but is the equivilent of a giant ground sloth compared to the light.
"Because this is how it always has been" isn't a valid reason to prevent change.
"Because it works" is a good reason, and currently the evidence shows that a 3 wepon light is possibly a little too flexible.
VaporTrail
Veteran X
If the 2-3-4 system were put in place, perhaps you'd be more inclined toward the medium? The way I think of it, the light was "supposed" to be a specialist, even in Tribes. It had speed and mobility, but it also had more firepower than it really needed to be a specialist, so it became a generalist, which bumped the medium from being a generalist, jack of all trades, to an even tighter specialist set of roles: farmer or MO. Even MO was a stretch, because if you were going O, you'd probably be better off taking a heavy, as you can deal a lot more damage that way.
IMO the light should be (in general) about flag movements, ie. chaser or capper and snipe LD. Medium and Heavy should be about bases and vehicles:defending and destroying. Having a light that is too flexible can allow what happened in Tribes, namely for the light armor to take over 70% of the roles easily, relegating at least one of the armors to mothballs for the most part. The only roles the light found dificult to fill were HO and farmer, as you needed the mortar for high damage output, and the heavy armor to absorb enough punishment to get the job done; and you couldn't deploy (or am I getting senile? Been forever since I've played T1) as a light.
See, this if this is the case, then you should just use a medium.Torks said:
The way things are set up currently, I hate being slow. I don't find it fun. So I just don't play heavy. It doesn't mean that everyone else has to hate playing heavy. It's just not what I do. I don't think the heavy should be made faster or anything.
Zoolooman, I don't disagree that 3-3-4 offers more "variation" in what weapons you can take. KP pretty much made the point I was going to. In truth it kills variation on the field because you don't really have to make a decision about what you take. Everyone can carry the same weapons and be effective in nearly every situation. I guess whether this is a bad thing is a matter of personal preference.
The only counterpoint i see to what KP has said about limiting weapons specializing roles more is that it *might* end up slowing the game down slightly.
Take for example the capper/ clearer/ escorter. Say for example, the clearer gets cut down before being able to do his job. If the escorting guy is able to carry the appropriate weapons to do both things, he could move in to clear, and the capper can still go. The then respawning would have been clearer can move out to escort.
If the would be escort isn't going to be able to clear, he could still run and hope that his presence is enough of a distraction to get the capper through or that he's able to clear effectively without a GL.
Anyway, it may not make much of a difference at all, and we won't really be able to tell until the beta hits. With the current 3/3/3 setup the example i gave above is moot anyway. It would only occur if you were running the light with only 2 weapons.
Take for example the capper/ clearer/ escorter. Say for example, the clearer gets cut down before being able to do his job. If the escorting guy is able to carry the appropriate weapons to do both things, he could move in to clear, and the capper can still go. The then respawning would have been clearer can move out to escort.
If the would be escort isn't going to be able to clear, he could still run and hope that his presence is enough of a distraction to get the capper through or that he's able to clear effectively without a GL.
Anyway, it may not make much of a difference at all, and we won't really be able to tell until the beta hits. With the current 3/3/3 setup the example i gave above is moot anyway. It would only occur if you were running the light with only 2 weapons.
Last edited:
Ok KP, after reading your postings and the postings of Zool... I still question how you can justify the 3 slot weapon load out for the heavies.
My argument being this, you are setting it up for very role set play. You have your LD, you have your HO's, you have your LO's, HD's, Cappers, etc... Coming esp. for my point down to the HoF's. I'm not much of a HoF myself, more of a HO, which on one hand leads me to agree with you partially because as a HO, having 3 weapons won't be that much of a hinderance at all. 3 weapons is all you really need, with having Mortar/Disk/<And a Weapon of choice> set-up. However when you reverse the field and look at the heavy based defense roles, you are looking to seriously nerf the "playability" of these rolls. Setting the heavy up with only 3 weapons will essentially remove the use of having a HoF or HD for that matter. Why not use a Med? Then your role is doubled because you have the ability to chase with the speed as well as a slightly better armor. The important thing about the HoF was, he could damage incoming cappers with his chain, toss mortars and what not at out going cappers as well as LO, body block for the flag, and remain on the flag as long as possible. The effective HoF is the one that can stay on the flag for as long as possible, with some of the best in the game staying there for almost the entire brevity of the map. Having 3 weapons as a HoF or HD will limit their effectiviness (sp) to the point people will most likely play the Med role instead for D.
I realize that you in no way have to defend what you guys are doing, nore explain the decisions you make. Also since we haven't gotten to play it at its current level, we don't have quite the outlook you guys do. However I'm hoping how you can explain the balance issues that are inevitable in leaving the D based heavies with only 3 weapons (2 of which will most likely be Mortar and Disk) to defend the base and flag with. From what I've seen it will come down that D based heavies will rely on the Disk/Mortar/Rocket or Disk/Mortar/Chain which makes them VERY role based, and less versitile as a defender being able to only really fill one role instead of covering another role if the need arise.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this, or at least a stfu stfd and go back to your hole, you don't know what you're talking about DV post. Having only 3 weapons for the heavies really frightens me as far as my outlook on T:V is concerned.
My argument being this, you are setting it up for very role set play. You have your LD, you have your HO's, you have your LO's, HD's, Cappers, etc... Coming esp. for my point down to the HoF's. I'm not much of a HoF myself, more of a HO, which on one hand leads me to agree with you partially because as a HO, having 3 weapons won't be that much of a hinderance at all. 3 weapons is all you really need, with having Mortar/Disk/<And a Weapon of choice> set-up. However when you reverse the field and look at the heavy based defense roles, you are looking to seriously nerf the "playability" of these rolls. Setting the heavy up with only 3 weapons will essentially remove the use of having a HoF or HD for that matter. Why not use a Med? Then your role is doubled because you have the ability to chase with the speed as well as a slightly better armor. The important thing about the HoF was, he could damage incoming cappers with his chain, toss mortars and what not at out going cappers as well as LO, body block for the flag, and remain on the flag as long as possible. The effective HoF is the one that can stay on the flag for as long as possible, with some of the best in the game staying there for almost the entire brevity of the map. Having 3 weapons as a HoF or HD will limit their effectiviness (sp) to the point people will most likely play the Med role instead for D.
I realize that you in no way have to defend what you guys are doing, nore explain the decisions you make. Also since we haven't gotten to play it at its current level, we don't have quite the outlook you guys do. However I'm hoping how you can explain the balance issues that are inevitable in leaving the D based heavies with only 3 weapons (2 of which will most likely be Mortar and Disk) to defend the base and flag with. From what I've seen it will come down that D based heavies will rely on the Disk/Mortar/Rocket or Disk/Mortar/Chain which makes them VERY role based, and less versitile as a defender being able to only really fill one role instead of covering another role if the need arise.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this, or at least a stfu stfd and go back to your hole, you don't know what you're talking about DV post. Having only 3 weapons for the heavies really frightens me as far as my outlook on T:V is concerned.
This word filter makes for funny posts.KineticPoet said:
How many games I've seen that have stuck with early gameplay decisions, regardless of player input. While I hope this isn't one of them, I can't help but wonder.
KineticPoet said:
Oh dear. I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't want to be a little cog in a machine.
Slayer_Allen said:
Should this game really be about what weapons you take? I thought the Tribes series was based in part on what you did with that variety of weapons, not in picking and choosing between 1-2 weapons and praying your puzzle piece fit against your opponent.
As far as the light goes, it needs to be as efficient as it was. If the medium needs buffed, do that. Don't make the medum 'better' by making the light even weaker.
KineticPoet said:
you say "encourages" dependencies, i say "forces" dependencies.
if "job A" and "job B" are required things my team needs to do and i can't do job A b/c i'm loaded out for job B, then I HAVE to have somebody else do job A for me otherwise the offense/defense gets shut down. but if there is noone there wanting/willing/ready to do it for me, then the game stops. on the flip side, just because i can loadout for A and B, that doesn't stop my team from sending two people to do those jobs. you say you are for flexibility, but i see problems that may decrease it.
we all saw how well forced teamwork worked out.
(obligatory blah blah we haven't played it yet we'll find out in beta disclaimer)
Ya, Wulfen and Afex are on to something.
Getting the heavy 4 slots really would help me sleep better at night, but I'm all for trying something new.
I actually played T2 last night, with only using 3 weapons with each armor, and really, I didn't change the way I played much at all. I think in T2's case, the dendency for me and my missle launcher for Shrikes/Turrets was greatly missed, but T:V's weapon requirements could be less demanding.
Only Beta will tell for sure.
Getting the heavy 4 slots really would help me sleep better at night, but I'm all for trying something new.
I actually played T2 last night, with only using 3 weapons with each armor, and really, I didn't change the way I played much at all. I think in T2's case, the dendency for me and my missle launcher for Shrikes/Turrets was greatly missed, but T:V's weapon requirements could be less demanding.
Only Beta will tell for sure.
KineticPoet said:
The assumptions are duly noted in my post as assumptions. I assume that someone will always take a disc, or (when available) a mortar and a disc. My long post is an attempt to combine pure theory with practicality. While there are a lot of available combinations, we can cut out entire sets of them that won't include the staple weapons. Historically a very tiny portion of the gaming population has failed to carry both disc and mortar. If T:V is even remotely like T1 and T2, I feel these assumptions are worth considering in T:V's design. The disc and the mortar are powerful for a reason, and unless you radically alter those weapons, they will continue to be staples.
Maybe you misunderstood my analysis. I probably didn't make this clear enough. More combinations means players become more generic, while fewer combinations generally means the players become more specific. I stated I chose 3-3-4 because it balanced between too specific (too unique) and too generic (too many combinations.)
But I think Tribes players need to be a combat whole. In my experience, three weapons is a the minimum weapon count requird be a complete combat unit, unless you are performing suicide style runs with heavy armors.
Tribes has three types of fighting:
1. Attack the ground (long range.)
2. Attack the ground (short range.)
3. Attack the air.
The successful and popular loadouts include weapons that fulfill these different aspects of Tribes combat. If you cut a player down to two weapons, you make it impossible for him to fight in one of these aspects unless he carries a weapon that can suffice in two of these roles.
I'm not trying to be fatalistic. I'm just saying that the mortar will be such a staple weapon that one needs to give the heavy 4 slots to assure the number of useful heavy loadouts remains equal to the number of useful light and medium loadouts.
This is of course something that can be changed. But to deny the existence of "staple weapons" and their effect on weapons choices is to play purely in the realm of theory. That's why I had all that extra information in my post, and that's why I advocate 3 - 3 - 4.
Thanks for reading.
I can see what KP and his crew are getting at, and I can understand some of what it is they're saying.
I don't like UT2004 because, while it does have that Team Game mode with the capture points and power stations, it doesn't feel like a Team Game. It still feels, very much like a Team "DeathMatch" Game. Its what KP is trying to get at with the "uniqueness" facter that makes it feel that way to me. IN UT2k4, everyone has the same potential, they can carry the same weapons and infact, carry every possible weapon at the same time. They can be every role, they do not need to choose between being one role over another. You want to snipe? Just make sure you pickup the Lightning Gun. You wanna Farm too? Ensure You've picked up the Mine Launcher and you can still take out tanks by picking up that Missle Gun. UT2k4 feels somewhat bland to me and not a very good team game.
Then there are games like TeamFortress, RtCW and BF1942 inwhich there is no choice. Here are your options and the exact variation then come in. Suddenly you have a very controlled and defined team game. These are some of my favorite, and very popular to boot, Team games that I really enjoy playing for their teamplay aspect. They provide no choice at all, expect that you define the role you want to play. You want to be a Medic? Ok, but Medics don't get to use the Rocket Gun. You want to spew hailstorms of lead and blow crap up in spectacular fashion? OK then, but you can't heal yourself.
UT2k4 is a very open system and games like TFC and BF1942 are a very closed system. That puts Tribes someplace in the middle, but I would say it leans more to the open end of the spectrum then the closed. Since this thread started I have swayed back and forth on the idea. At first I was, "like, WTF, whatchu' talkin bout Willis? 2 for lights? 3 for heavies?!" and then I was more "well... why the hell not?". I guess if I had to step back and not think based on emotional first impressions I'd have to annalylze what I know I like and what I know I've come to dislike. I don't like the "Open" system, games that use it don't feel like Team games. Closed systems I do like, many games I hearld for their team play use this system. So, if Tribes is in the middle, it would seem that moving Tribes to a closed system would be better for me then keeping it more open. That's what experience with knowing what games I end up playing alot of are like. Moving Tribes into a fully closed system wouldn't be Tribes though, but moving it closer on the spectrum to a closed state would follow my prefrence it seems.(even if I consciously wouldn't acknowledge it).
What the hell, roll out the Beta! I'm willing to try a Light Armour with 2 weapons... hell roll out Tribes 1 and someone fire up a Mod that impliments the Slot changes, lets play Tribes!.
I love: TFC, RtCW, BF42
I Dislike: Heavy Gear II, UT2k4, Q:A, StarSiege
I love: Teamplay
I Dislike: Deathmatch
I love: Choice
I dislike: Unrestrictive freedom
I Love: Unique, defined, specialized
I Dislike: Common, undefined, generalized
I love: Tribes
I Disklike: ?
However, in going down to a 3-3-3 system you are not really making the problem roles more unique. Light Armour is a problem role, it is too "open" in Tribes 1, it should be forced to specialize more. 3-3-3 keeps a Light Armour the same but closes Heavy Armour and forces them to specialize a highly noted amount more then is a problem for them (IE They're not whats wrong).
I don't like UT2004 because, while it does have that Team Game mode with the capture points and power stations, it doesn't feel like a Team Game. It still feels, very much like a Team "DeathMatch" Game. Its what KP is trying to get at with the "uniqueness" facter that makes it feel that way to me. IN UT2k4, everyone has the same potential, they can carry the same weapons and infact, carry every possible weapon at the same time. They can be every role, they do not need to choose between being one role over another. You want to snipe? Just make sure you pickup the Lightning Gun. You wanna Farm too? Ensure You've picked up the Mine Launcher and you can still take out tanks by picking up that Missle Gun. UT2k4 feels somewhat bland to me and not a very good team game.
Then there are games like TeamFortress, RtCW and BF1942 inwhich there is no choice. Here are your options and the exact variation then come in. Suddenly you have a very controlled and defined team game. These are some of my favorite, and very popular to boot, Team games that I really enjoy playing for their teamplay aspect. They provide no choice at all, expect that you define the role you want to play. You want to be a Medic? Ok, but Medics don't get to use the Rocket Gun. You want to spew hailstorms of lead and blow crap up in spectacular fashion? OK then, but you can't heal yourself.
UT2k4 is a very open system and games like TFC and BF1942 are a very closed system. That puts Tribes someplace in the middle, but I would say it leans more to the open end of the spectrum then the closed. Since this thread started I have swayed back and forth on the idea. At first I was, "like, WTF, whatchu' talkin bout Willis? 2 for lights? 3 for heavies?!" and then I was more "well... why the hell not?". I guess if I had to step back and not think based on emotional first impressions I'd have to annalylze what I know I like and what I know I've come to dislike. I don't like the "Open" system, games that use it don't feel like Team games. Closed systems I do like, many games I hearld for their team play use this system. So, if Tribes is in the middle, it would seem that moving Tribes to a closed system would be better for me then keeping it more open. That's what experience with knowing what games I end up playing alot of are like. Moving Tribes into a fully closed system wouldn't be Tribes though, but moving it closer on the spectrum to a closed state would follow my prefrence it seems.(even if I consciously wouldn't acknowledge it).
What the hell, roll out the Beta! I'm willing to try a Light Armour with 2 weapons... hell roll out Tribes 1 and someone fire up a Mod that impliments the Slot changes, lets play Tribes!.
I love: TFC, RtCW, BF42
I Dislike: Heavy Gear II, UT2k4, Q:A, StarSiege
I love: Teamplay
I Dislike: Deathmatch
I love: Choice
I dislike: Unrestrictive freedom
I Love: Unique, defined, specialized
I Dislike: Common, undefined, generalized
I love: Tribes
I Disklike: ?
However, in going down to a 3-3-3 system you are not really making the problem roles more unique. Light Armour is a problem role, it is too "open" in Tribes 1, it should be forced to specialize more. 3-3-3 keeps a Light Armour the same but closes Heavy Armour and forces them to specialize a highly noted amount more then is a problem for them (IE They're not whats wrong).
Last edited:
- Status