Thrax speaks in VUGames T:V forum

You're forcing lights to cover 2 areas with 1 weapon. This is not a good way to promote the armor. You need to cover every aspect of an all-around general tribesplayer.

Try playing t1 or t2 with only 2 weapon load-outs.

When I play light in T1 and T2 I HAVE 3 weapons, but I never use my CG because I suck with it.

So if I were to drop the CG and just have Disc and Gren I'd do just as well. I don't stick around and duel when I'm in light armor. I have a job to do and I do it.

Also, as has been said in a couple posts, this is NOT the same light that we know and love. It's a faster, more agile, less armored light (look at the pic of Julia in light, and look at the pic of the guy in medium..how much less armor is Julia wearing?)

Edit:

Also, I AM promoting armor. I want the general/generic Tribes player in medium armor (as apparently do the devs as thats what you spawn in). It should be a choice you have to make to go into light, an actual decision you think about (albeit probably before the match for comp play ).

If someone wants to step down into light, they should be doing it for a job that needs speed, not firepower. If you need speed and firepower, grab medium. if you just need firepower grab a heavy.

enDless_Delirium said:

Also, I AM promoting armor. I want the general/generic Tribes player in medium armor (as apparently do the devs as thats what you spawn in). It should be a choice you have to make to go into light, an actual decision you think about (albeit probably before the match for comp play ).

If someone wants to step down into light, they should be doing it for a job that needs speed, not firepower. If you need speed and firepower, grab medium. if you just need firepower grab a heavy.

Click to expand...

By forcing people into medium, only to go light "when it's necessary," you're doing to the light what t1 did to the medium. It should be your choice which armor you want to use. As it's already been said, limiting weapons is not a good way to try balancing anything.

pyrot3chnic said:

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

Click to expand...

Some advice from a guy who's seen enough epic sized posts dissappear into the internet, never to be seen from again. Always CTRL+A and then CTRL+C before clicking the "SUBMIT" button. That way, when the inevitable "404/403"HaHa We Just Hosed You" error returns, its simply a matter of CTRL+V and its all good again.



----------



Zoolooman makes a noted point about Open Beta's. That being the vast majority of players do not view an Open Beta as a test, but a Demo. Thus, large and frequent "experiments" to test the design of the game sour the ever so popular opinion of Joe Public who simply wants to play the game.

(Pyro's post)
Not necessarily. The medium in T1 was never an option due to it's limitations were not balanced by any advantages. It was slower, the weapons loadout of the light was just as deadly, and the armor advantage of the medium generally equated to half a disc shot.

First, a 2 weapon light will still be used by snipe D, at a minimum. Next, we don't know if the light can deploy. If so, this gives it more of a role than the "f-armor" had in T1. Next, Snipe D isn't required to have an Epack (to my knowledge) so they could have a repair pack and run around repairing stuff/people, taking potshots at cappers when they appear.

Thats probably just the tip of the iceberg. What made the T1 light so prevelent was not the medium's weakness, but rather the light's ability to do almost any job that the medium thought about, only better.

The T:V "sooooooper-light" is not meant to be the T1 light. I think the armor loss between the two isn't enough of a disadvantage to prevent the same thing happening in T:V as T1, a near mediumless environment. People gravitate toward extremes. The trick is to provide a three extreme system, firepower, mobility, and flexibility, rather than any two.

Wulfen said:

The only thing I'll say in my defense is Thrax saying, "So at the moment our thought is three weapons for everybody. It's not set in stone, but I think it's likely." I honestly don't know how anyone who has played Tribes for any length of time can like the sounds of that. I would hope that that is up for discussion well into open beta. On paper I don't like it, and it's all I have to go on right now.

Click to expand...

Well I think I made a very fair statement there. It isn't cast in stone, but based on our discussions, thoughts, and testing, three looks to be very good, in fact optimal, for T:V.

I think the fact that you need to decide what you're loading up for in heavy is good, instead of taking "all the good weapons" and making a decision on which pack to take. Statements like that some (not you) have made about needing or wanting more weapons are off target. There were times when I would have liked to have all weapons in light with unlimited ammo, but obviously that's not going to happen.

So what's the advantage of being in heavy? You're in HEAVY ARMOR. The fact that you can take more damage is your advantage.

You're still fast in a heavy (like in T1), you still have lots of health (like in T1), you're just not a walking armory any more. It works quite well actually.

Like most things, I am not going to throw a fit or fall in love with the idea until I've seen it myself.

"All the good weapons..."

So Disc, Mortar, (weapon of choice).

Depending on how they turn out, I'll probably wind up using the RP or Burner(whatever it is) on offense. Not sure if it's perfect... but willing to try.

But what about the podcopter? Christ no barrelrolls or loopty-loops!?! No arcady dog-fighting? I'm sorry I'm just upset(disappointed). I was hoping for balancing the air-vehicle not nerfing them.

does the BF in your name stand for battlefield?

Dac346_99 said:

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..

Click to expand...

I don't remember saying I expect anything. I just prefer reading insights that we haven't already had (which has happened before). Failing that, discovering people's theoretical opinions is pretty good too, but not as good as discovering people's informed opinions (which is currently not possible, as you pointed out),
KP

Ben Reed said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nobody's asking you to sugarcoat anything. I only challenged you to come up with theoretical arguments that we haven't already considered. And, since those don't appear to be forthcoming, I offered you the next best opportunity to really help us, namely beta where you can provide us with informed feedback.

Having said that, I'll keep checking this thread until it dies in case anyone has new theoretical insight to offer,
KP

What ever you do, you need to keep the light at 3 weapons.

The disk/chain/gren combo is just zen.

5 weapons is not too much for a heavy. Most of they time, the heavy is limited in its role - as HO or HoF and uses only 2-3 weapons at most.

But what it lacks in mobility, it makes up for in destructive versatility. The heavies are so often the sentries guarding the flag and having the swiss army knife array of weapons allows the heavy to adapt to changing circumstances rapidly. Same thing on offense.

Additionally, each weapon has little idiosyncracies that help or hinder its effectiveness in a given scenario. One of the scary aspects of meeting a heavy as a light is that you never know what he is going to pull out and use on you. Maybe he is LPB and is going to try and chain your ass - maybe he will gren spam you or tag you with a MA plasma shot. OK - he chains, he mortars and has a disk launcher - does he have a rocket? Can I get above him? Does he have a shock lance? Can I get close to him?

If I meet a heavy with 3 weapons and I know one is a mortar and another is a disk launcher, I know the heavy lacks versatility and I can attack him with more confidence. I think this effect is more pronounced for newer players and less so for veterans who have learned how best to skin the cat.

Zoolooman said:

Why would it be confusing?

Click to expand...

I didn't say it would be confusing. I said it would not be easy to understand compared to a consistent solution.

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

Click to expand...

In a sense, yes. Everyone here has played Tribes 1 and 2, which resulted in the following feedback: having to deal with more than 3 weapons on-the-fly (in addition to a jetpack, skiing, grenades and packs) can be confusing.

This is a long time before beta, where I can show you the theory that supports my stance on the subject.

Click to expand...

While I respect the thought that you and others have put into it, I have to point out that we did our maths many months ago. As I said in one of my first posts in this thread, I asked you to fill in some blanks--not because we haven't filled them in ourselves, but because it's a lot of work to prepare the post that you prepared. And I already posted the theory behind it with T1 and T2 as examples.

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

Click to expand...

I don't know about that, and you're again assuming there are two staple weapons, but I'll see if I can arrange a test (no promises). Realize though that there's no single developer that must be convinced; there's a group of us.

Personally I'm intrigued by the idea of 2-3-4, for example. But I can tell you this for sure: there are potential Tribes players out there, possibly a lot of them, some of whom are developers, who in general find 3 weapons much more manageable than 5, or even 4, when you consider that at any given time you might also have to manage a pack and a deployable and grenades and jetpacking and skiing and possibly other stuff you don't know about yet.

Anyway, yeah, since it's a fairly easy change then we don't really have grounds to deny you an internal test. I'll see what I can stir up,
KP

{CG}Pendragon said:

One of the scary aspects of meeting a heavy as a light is that you never know what he is going to pull out and use on you. Maybe he is LPB and is going to try and chain your ass - maybe he will gren spam you or tag you with a MA plasma shot. OK - he chains, he mortars and has a disk launcher - does he have a rocket? Can I get above him? Does he have a shock lance? Can I get close to him?

Click to expand...

Heya Pen. This is the kind of anecdotal evidence you guys need to offer to support the theories. Counter-arguments rely on too many assumptions whereas a story like this is more general and gets inside the mind of the player,
KP

KineticPoet said:

Anyway, yeah, since it's a fairly easy change then we don't really have grounds to deny you an internal test. I'll see what I can stir up,
KP

Click to expand...

It is quotes like this that give me the greatest hope for T:V. A lot of beta tests don't focus on issues like play balance as they turn into mere bug hunts anymore.

Thanks KP!

KineticPoet said:

Everyone here has played Tribes 1 and 2, which resulted in the following feedback: having to deal with more than 3 weapons on-the-fly (in addition to a jetpack, skiing, grenades and packs) can be confusing.

Click to expand...

This exemplifies Afex's earlier mention of forcing specialization. In all the time I have played FPS, I can think of very few times in which I actually got confused with weapons and loadouts. Tribes, in my mind, is less susceptible to this problem becuase you pick the weapons you get to use, unlike other FPS' where nine (or greater) weapons are at your disposal.

If confusion is a problem, why force a limitation? If people cannot handle the number of available items, they simply do not have to choose them. It is similar to people can choose the type of transmission in a car: automatic, or manual. The manual takes more work, but when mastered, tends to not only be more fun overall, but it also affords more control over the vehicle.

So what's the advantage of being in heavy? You're in HEAVY ARMOR. The fact that you can take more damage is your advantage.

Click to expand...

I havn't known this to be true in my experience. The fact that you give up speed and manueverabililty means you're easier to hit and generally take more damage in a duel. You can not avoid incoming fire and so take more of it. For example, in a duel it takes 2 good and solid disks to kill a Light, 3 good hits to kill a Medium. However, the Medium is so poor on his feet, he's that much eaiser to hit and takes perportionately more damage because of it. So, his extra armour at the expense of nimbleness is a handicap and not an advantage at all. Heavies get pounded all the same, whether or not you can absorb more punishement is irrelevent if its certain you're going to equally take more punishment. Remember in early Tribes 1, before skiing, Heavies would trundle across the map on offense only to get pounded into respawn by the first Light Armour that happened across them. A light simply spawns and had the proven advantage to wreck a determined HO without much challenge. It was a prominent complaint registered on forums. Armour didn't prove much of an advantage. Then came skiing and that complaint magically disappeared, to be replaced with a new one.

Speaking of retro-Tribes, an example of Limitations in Loadouts could easily be seen in game. The original Laser Rifle (being the most heavily restricted weapon in the game) could only be equipt by itself. You were not allowed to carry any other weapon besides a Blaster. If you can remember back that far, and you used the Laser Rifle enough, you know how it feels to be limited in a very basic way. You knew that if they found you o-sniping, the horde of guys that came over the hill after you would put you on the defensive in a hurry. You knew they'd all be armed with a Disker (and a few other choice weapons too like Chainguns and Gren Launchers) and that was more then a match in a duel for you and your blaster... so you retreated. They changed that restriction and the dynamic of O-Sniping changed with it. You were no longer forced into retreat, you could now stand your ground simply because you were allowed to carry the extra weapon with you. I also remember when I discovered that you could simply scavange a Disker off a dead guy and then snipe and have the Disker for backup... which proved quite a surprise for the guy that came after you not realizing you can answer his challenge, Disk for Disk.

From what I've been able to tell from this thread, and moreso from the original VU thread, most of the people that throw a fit about the 3 weapon system either think they'll run out of ammo, or they simply demand more than 3 weapons because they think it either makes more sense for a heavy to have them, or it doesn't fit into their security zone.

So the only real argument I can see is the concept of ammo eventually being depleted. I don't see why that's a bad thing, myself, unless your favorite pasttime is raping a base. Maybe with the new spawn setup + spawn loadout on a medium, you'll die more often thanks to the absence of waves of lights trying to retake the nearest inv station just so they can change loadouts. That should make everyone happy, yes? You die, so you don't have to worry about ammo. Perfect system.