Thrax speaks in VUGames T:V forum

Status
Not open for further replies.
gdit, I just typed out a long ass post and IE slaps me in the face with a "Cannot find server," gg.. fudge.

short version: I'll try to be more thoughtful rather than emotional during beta as I post, but it will be hard if there will constantly be idiotic posts by people who have never even heard of the game. I ask, if possible, to make a seperate forum where vets can have their discussion; and one for the masses to post things like "OMG PEOPLE ARE FLYING!!!! HAX OUT ALREADY, WTFF?!!?!!!11!!1!one"

edit//
Acctually, I should first ask where the forums will be set-up..? I'll guess tribesvengeance.com. If so, my question isn't necessary unless TW gets a big share of the newb flood.
 
Last edited:
Everyone should be able to contribute.. I hate the idea of "vet" only anything. We need to be opening doors and welcoming new players, not sending them to fat camp, so to speak.
 
KillerONE said:
Everyone should be able to contribute.. I hate the idea of "vet" only anything. We need to be opening doors and welcoming new players, not sending them to fat camp, so to speak.

If closing the doors too close is a bad thing, then opening them too wide is another.
There has to be "a line", and a difference from either side.
 
KineticPoet said:
Why make the change in the first place if it's easy to change back? Well, there are the reasons I've already given. Plus, in design there's a lot to be said for consistency. It's really easy to understand that everyone can carry 3 weapons. It's an extra (though fairly intuitive) rule to understand that the heavier your armour, the more weapons you can carry (2-3-4 or 3-4-5). It's not very easy to understand that some armours can carry more weapons than others (3-4-4, 3-3-4).

So part of our decision involved opting for the most consistent approach, and we'll see how that goes. Be sure to speak up again if you try it and still don't like it. I fully agree that sometimes simplification for the sake of consistency can cut too much off a corner,
KP

I only have one comment on this. I believe that 3-3-4 is visually intuitive, considering that lights and mediums look like people (one just carries more armor than the other), while heavies look like walking gun platforms. You expect them to be better armed.

It would be counterintuitive with something bizarre like 4 - 3- 3 or 3 - 4 - 3.
 
Exactly, who is going to ask "well why does the heavy carry more weapons than the lighter armors?"
You shouldn't assume people are that stupid and cut back on what is logical to most.
 
The vet beta forum will most likely be GD.

I'm sorry, but if someone doesn't understand the concept that a heavier armor can carry more weapons (like 3-3-4), then that person has more problems to deal with than a simple video game. However, if it's that big of a deal to be consistant with the # of weapons, you can always say that the mortar is "built into" the heavy armor. That way you'll still have 3-3-3, but the extra weapon is a mortar. As everyone else has said before, there is no reason to be in a heavy without a mortar. So it should be as.sumed that everyone that uses the heavy will use the mortar.
 
KineticPoet said:
Be sure to speak up again if you try it and still don't like it.
KP

DCC me the latest build and i'll let ya know what I think.


One thing im worried about with limited weapon slots is going to be that there will be some weapon that you are always going to want/need and thus you wont get to use a bunch of other weapons.

Take T2 hand nades for example... you had a nice varity of unique nades...but because of the stupid fudgeing missle launcher, you Always had to carry flares(yeah I know you could carry others, but you'd be dumb to do so). So even though the other nades were great, they were pretty much nerfered because of other factors.

I can see something like this happening with limited weapon slots. We already have weapons like the disc and mortar that you'd just be dumb to go w/o.

I guess I just dont see the reasons behind wanting to limit the weapon slots. Seems to me that some good cool weapons will be left out...or that you'll be indirectly forced to do certain roles based on what your weapon loadout is.


edit: what the fudge is with this gay ass text filter? :| im not 13, I want to read the poop people post!
 
Will wait to see the beta of course but I can't say I dig this solution really. My heavy runs always have mortar (for obvious reasons), disk and chain at the very least. These weapons are staples, I don't even consider them options on my heavy runs. The unique aspect comes in when I loadout an elf, missle, plasma or shocklance. Atm my votes on 3-3-4 but without playing it I can't condemn it completely. Pardon the paranoia. :hrm:
 
Krytoss said:
why is the only person here who seems to be advocating 3-3-3 KP? :p
I'm not advocating it necessarily. I'm telling you the thought process that went into the current design. Personally I'm still having fun when we play with 3-3-3 here at the office, so I don't mind it. And everyone else at the office doesn't seem to mind having 3 weapons. And, importantly, we found that some people here found that having more than 3 weapons was confusing.

But we're not everyone. And, well, neither are you guys. =) Which is why actual playtesting is needed in this case in order to get wider spread, well-informed opinions on the matter. By well-informed I simply mean "play the game and then complain."

By all means though, if you guys think you can come up with theoretical insights that we haven't already thought of, keep up with the thought experiments. Personally I'm getting pretty bored of the subject,
KP
 
KineticPoet said:
I'm not advocating it necessarily. I'm telling you the thought process that went into the current design. Personally I'm still having fun when we play with 3-3-3 here at the office, so I don't mind it. And everyone else at the office doesn't seem to mind having 3 weapons. And, importantly, we found that some people here found that having more than 3 weapons was confusing.

But we're not everyone. And, well, neither are you guys. =) Which is why actual playtesting is needed in this case in order to get wider spread, well-informed opinions on the matter. By well-informed I simply mean "play the game and then complain."

By all means though, if you guys think you can come up with theoretical insights that we haven't already thought of, keep up with the thought experiments. Personally I'm getting pretty bored of the subject,
KP

in all fairness if we only talked about what we have experienced then this forum would be pretty bare... also if we havent played the game or have and signed NDA then I think expecting informed oppinions instead of gut reactions is expecting too much..
 
KineticPoet said:
Which is why actual playtesting is needed in this case in order to get wider spread, well-informed opinions on the matter. By well-informed I simply mean "play the game and then complain."

Until the beta happens, you get out of us exactly what you provide to us. I call 'em like I see 'em, and I won't sugarcoat it for anybody.

Despite the hissing of snakes at his back, Laocoön presses on.
 
Ok, I started this as another arguement for a 2 weapon light, but it sorta evolved as I thought about stuff.

So if the light and medium armors DO have the same number of weapons, then they have to be made different AND balanced using a combo of speed, armor, and "class" specific weapon(s).

Since the new medium is supposedly the equivalent of a current light, we know that disc-jumping will cause that armor to lose ~3/4 to 4/5 of their health.
If this is the case, the new light won't have very much less health, otherwise they would not be able to disc-jump at all and therefore would lose their speed adantage.
I am going to assume that they will be some degree faster than the medium, otherwise they would be the same armor :p.
If all this is the case, then the balance would have to be on the medium's end, in the form of some awesome medium-only weapon that would give me a reason to pass-up the speed advantage of the light in a game based on movement and speed.
That, or the light needs one less weapon to be made less-useful than the medium armor in order to balance the speed advantage.
Either way I'm sure it's been balanced already using one of these methods, or something else that I haven't thought of.

*Note: I'm not thinking of 2 weapon lights as a nerf of the armor. I am thinking of it as a brand new armor that hasn't been in tribes before. You can't nerf something that hasn't existed before. The light will be the same, in the form of the new medium.
 
Oh sh!t. I just edited Zoolooman's post and submitted it instead of quoting it, haha. *sigh* Thankfully Ben quoted you in his post so I'll re-paste from there. See next page for my response. Sorry Z,
KP

Zoolooman said:
KP:

Why would it be confusing? You open up the inventory screen, and switch armors, and what's this? The heavy has another weapon slot pop up when you select it? Seems obvious and intuitive to me.

Have you tested anything but 3 - 3 - 3 for an extended period of time?

You see, here is what I think - and this is just opinion - about changing game design during beta. I think it just doesn't happen. You see, 3 - 3 - 3 will work, and everyone will play it, and think, "3 - 3 - 3 ok" and that'll be the end of that. There will never be sufficient feedback to get it altered, because anyone who complains saying, "I want another weapon for the heavy!" will get shot down by a swarm of beta sycophants spamming things as clever as "newb" to "omg heavies are strong/weak/blue enough don't change them!!!"

Since there will never be sufficient feedback, 3 - 3 - 4 will never get tested. Not because it isn't easy to test, but because changing things around suddenly during the beta doesn't help people who are trying to find the subtle balance issues in the game.

This is why I argue for the 3 - 3 - 4 model *right now*. This is a long time before beta, where I can show you the theory that supports my stance on the subject. I would think an extended test of 3 - 3 - 4 will convince any developer that likes the heavy armor exactly how much nicer it is for a player to have two staple and two speciality weapons, rather than two staples and one specialty weapon. I won't say anything further, since I've made this point for the zillionth time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zoolooman said:
KP:

Why would it be confusing? You open up the inventory screen, and switch armors, and what's this? The heavy has another weapon slot pop up when you select it? Seems obvious and intuitive to me.

Have you tested anything but 3 - 3 - 3 for an extended period of time?

You see, here is what I think - and this is just opinion - about changing game design during beta. I think it just doesn't happen. You see, 3 - 3 - 3 will work, and everyone will play it, and think, "3 - 3 - 3 ok" and that'll be the end of that. There will never be sufficient feedback to get it altered, because anyone who complains saying, "I want another weapon for the heavy!" will get shot down by a swarm of beta sycophants spamming things as clever as "newb" to "omg heavies are strong/weak/blue enough don't change them!!!"

Since there will never be sufficient feedback, 3 - 3 - 4 will never get tested. Not because it isn't easy to test, but because changing things around suddenly during the beta doesn't help people who are trying to find the subtle balance issues in the game.

This is why I argue for the 3 - 3 - 4 model *right now*. This is a long time before beta, where I can show you the theory that supports my stance on the subject. I would think an extended test of 3 - 3 - 4 will convince any developer that likes the heavy armor exactly how much nicer it is for a player to have two staple and two speciality weapons, rather than two staples and one specialty weapon. I won't say anything further, since I've made this point for the zillionth time.

I agree wholeheartedly, and though your ideas soak up all the love I so rightly deserve, I still want you, baby. You are my friggin' WORLD.
 
Slayer: The best way to balance the medium in my mind is to make it 80% as agile as the light and 80% as armored as the heavy, making it the staple armor that is surrounded by the extremes.

In other words, not only making it middle of the road, but also making the middle of the road wider.

As for 2 weapon slots, it's not a nerf, it's a restriction. There are three aspects of Tribes combat, and if you can't fight in all three, then your loadout won't be very useful. There is a reason certain loadouts float to the surface and get used more than others.

My opinion is that attempting to balance between armors by the number of weapons they can carry is a bad idea, when you can balance the armors better by simply balancing them and their statistics.
 
Oh, and I felt I should make this post, just because.

Ultimately, this is the designer's decision, and not ours. The fact that KP even decided to come and debate with us on the subject is very encouraging. I'm obviously not fully aware of the T:V design, and wouldn't have the arrogance to tell the designers what they should or should not do with their game.

Thanks KP. You made a thread destined for a boring listless death into something interesting. We've got a long way to go before we can apply experience to our theories, and TT has kept me interested every step of the way.

For those who thought this post was too long or too sycophantic, here is the condensed version:

Tribes Talk would be insanely boring if the developers, designers, producers and PR people didn't talk to us about the game.
 
Zoolooman said:
No need to mock. You're right though, I'm using the terminology badly.

Let me explain it like this:

If I have eight weapons, and one weapon slot, I have eight highly specialized classes.

If I have eight weapons, and eight weapon slots, I have one generic class.

If I have eight weapons, and three weapon slots, then I have a certain amount of generic capability and a certain amount of specialization. I have to reject five other weapons and decide upon three.

That's why 3 weapon slots is such a great number. It strikes a balance between specialized and generic loadouts.

My post goes further to explain that what *really* makes 3 so great though, is that it's actually *two* optional weapon slots with a third staple weapon - in this case, the disc launcher.

I note that the heavy uses two staple weapons - mortar and disc - and should therefore have 4 weapon slots to give it equal access to two optional weapon slots.

Hence 3-3-4. Excluding the combinations without staple weapons, this gives each armor class 21 combinations (excluding packs and other such). It sounds reasonable to me, considering that more combinations can be achieved at a loss of specialization, that we stick with this model of two slots given for non-staple weapons.

Again, I don't know why Natural, but I found your post surprisingly offensive. :/ I'm sorry if this post came off as arrogant or brusque or irritated or pedantic or whatever because of that irrational reaction.

You make a good argument here. I was confused before when you said:
"More combinations means players become more generic, fewer combinations generally means the players become more specific."
It seemed intuitively the opposite. In this thread now you say:

If I have eight weapons, and eight weapon slots, I have one generic class.

It's correct in this situation where fewer (one) combination => generic. The earlier quote was probably just a misunderstanding. Sorry if I offended.


Anyway, I think it's a big assumption that the disk and mortar are staple weapons for every heavy loadout. With a HOF-style position, I can easily imagine a heavy choosing the burner and new blaster over the disk. If defending an indoor-area, a heavy might have far less utility with the mortar.

Your theory is well structured. We must admit, though, that there's still quite a few unknowns in the game's development. The remaining weapons, deployables, packs, and such will have a strong impact in the variety of player roles.
 
Last edited:
btw Heavies didnt kick ass cuz they had a RL/Mortar/spinfuser/cg/elf/disk etc..

they kicked ass because they had a mortar and lots of health..

those are the two #1 traits of heavies..

Changing # of weapons doesnt destroy the fundamental of the heavy at all imho..

Who knows maybe it makes the role of HO more stylized in that different people will use different loadouts and have different styles and skills.
 
Zoolooman said:
Slayer: The best way to balance the medium in my mind is to make it 80% as agile as the light and 80% as armored as the heavy, making it the staple armor that is surrounded by the extremes.

In other words, not only making it middle of the road, but also making the middle of the road wider.

As for 2 weapon slots, it's not a nerf, it's a restriction. There are three aspects of Tribes combat, and if you can't fight in all three, then your loadout won't be very useful. There is a reason certain loadouts float to the surface and get used more than others.

My opinion is that attempting to balance between armors by the number of weapons they can carry is a bad idea, when you can balance the armors better by simply balancing them and their statistics.


Just playing Devil's Advocate here Zooloo, but if I get really good at MA'ing people in T:V then my 2 weapon light loadout is capable of all three combat arenas.

Short Range vs. Ground - Disk
Long Range vs. Ground - Gren
Air - MA the fool.

Also, as I've been thinking about it more, the light armor always seemed to me that it shouldn't be sticking around to really fight. It has weapons for defense, or for a lightning fast strike. But the Light's main weapon should be it's mobility, to hit and fade fast, possibly taking something valuable with it (like a flag or ball).

A light should be fast enough to evade everything but another light. In which case it'll come down to the skill of the light players to keep the fight in the 2/3 of the Combat spectrum that they can fight in, while restricting the other.


*TOPIC CHANGE*

However, Zooloo makes a VERY good point about sudden changes in beta. While yes it's easy to make changes in beta, especially something as simple as changing "max weapon on heavy" from 3 to 4. However, I've never seen a major gameplay change suggestion(from anyone but a dev anyhow) be well received in beta. Especially when it only effects one armor/class/thing.

Why? because of what Zooloo said, there are people who will love it in 3-3-3, probably people who haven't played much if any Tribes and just come into the series with 3-3-3 being the way it is. Then when someone posts that they think the Heavy should be given the variety of weapons (as per Zooloo's theory, not counting staple weapons as choices) they will be shot down by people saying he just wants to be a one man army in a team based game.

The heavy armor should be able to outgun in a standup fight anything but another heavy. A Light armor should be able to outrun anything but another lightarmor. A medium armor should be somewhere in the middle, able to keep up with the lights (assuming superior skill/luck/aim on the mediums part) while not having to immediately wet itself upon seeing a Heavy dug in where it needs to go.

I really think you guys should try the other loadout numbers in testing before Beta (for extensive periods of time) to at least try it out. Then when Beta comes out, I dunno, as you will need public opinion. Maybe rotate the weapon selections every week and see which people like more? (like week 1, 3-3-3. Week 2 2-3-4, Week 3 3-3-4) then cycle back and ask which people liked the best.

*TOPIC CHANGE*

The more I think about it, the more I'm actually coming to like a 2-3-4 though.

If only as I see it more like this.

Light (super-light I guess, as it is not the light we all know and love) - Scout, harasser. is NOT SUPPOSED TO be in long term combat, and so isn't equipped for long-term combat. Job is to hit, and fade really fast. Or to chase and stop other scout-harassers if a medium can't do it.

Medium - your jack of all trades. Able to defend and attack well, maneuverable and fast, but still able to take a few good hits. Is ABLE to be able engage in, and emerge victorious, but relies more on mobility to dodge shots than to sit there and take it.

Heavy - Walking tank, lotsof guns. Able to attack stationary targets and defend well, relying on firepower and superior armor to get the job done. is EXPECTED TO engage in long term combat AND emerge victorious.

With this, I think you'd see the medium getting the most use, especially with Zooloo's idea of a much wider middle of the road for it. And it also doesn't have the "paper-rock-scissors" mentality that Thrax stated the dev team hated.

Lights shouldn't be in long fights (look how little armor they have if you need more proof), but they COULD win won with superior skill.

Which when it comes down to it, is what us vets seem to want. We want skill to mean something,and I think that whatI described above does it well, while still keeping the versatility we all love in tribes.

Standardized loadouts will exist, I'm sure. But they already do. Most cappers bring Disc - Gren - Chain. Gren so they can clear, disc so they can move the HoF, and chain so they can chain defenders.

with 3-3-3 this doesn't change. with 2-3-4 it means a capper will probably bring Disc-Gren (as clearing and getting the flag are all important) and then either use the terrain to their advantage, have an escort, or just plain be better than the defenders to get home with it.

It encourages teamplay, as an escort/clearer will make the job a lot easier, but doesn't force it, as the capper can still do the job alone.

Course, now I'm rambling too :)


MOST IMPORTANT POINT: The devs should test out 3-3-4 and 2-3-4 extensively before Beta, and then make their decision on what they like, and then give the people in beta the choice of which they prefer (not from goingby people asking for more weapons, but by actually forcing people to try the other choice and then asking which they preferred)

Edit - fixed some sentences, and added *topic change* flags as I talked about 3 things in one post with no real linking.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top