The general opinion concerning aggro vs. stealth

[FlamingGimp]

The major concern should be stealth. If aggro is allowed at all, then full aggro is going to be a possible strategy. There's just no way you can have a little aggro, but not have full aggro work. I mean, I'd like that in a game, but I don't think it's conceptually possible to do that, so full aggro by default is going to be a viable strategy unless we remove all aggro (whcih would probably be bad for the game).

On the other hand, I think we should work to make full stealth viable on as many maps as we can. Some maps, like warehouse or deftech, just aren't oging to have full stealth as a viable option due to map design. On the other hand, full stealth can't be so good that mercs never find you, because that would be a pretty boring merc game.
Still, if you're that much better than the mercs at sneaking, I think it should be an interesting humiliation victory to be able to win without ever being seen by a merc.

Be careful dictating where you want the game to go based upon your own preferences.  Just because you're bad at/to lazy to defend against a certain tactic doesn't mean it's unfair or unbalanced.  This comes up a lot in the form of aggro/camping (which I find a ridiculous accusation).

If you're able to win a round without ever being seen by a merc then you're playing against some shitty merc teams.  Merc patrol routes/positions should be spaced appropriate to allow timely access to all objectives on the map before they've been hacked.  If that's not the case, then simply put you're doing a terrible job.  Stealth works especially well against all the "No contact for 3+ minutes is really boring" players as they get bored/antsy and move out of position.

EAX hearing a spy drawing a gun without laser doesn't bother me.  There are however a certain few players who can hear everything within a very general vicinity; most notably crouch-walk footsteps.  That is one of the more irritating things I've encountered in this game.

[Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet]

EAX hearing a spy drawing a gun without laser doesn't bother me.  There are however a certain few players who can hear everything within a very general vicinity; most notably crouch-walk footsteps.  That is one of the more irritating things I've encountered in this game.

That's why EAX shouldn't be in the game :D

[goodkebab]

As stated by everyone on the dev team already...this is intended as a pure clone of CT in gameplay.

That means we are not going to favor stealth or aggro in any way, try to get the gadget behavior as close as possible, and character controls as close as possible.

The first release will be the most difficult.  If we reach our goal,  we can then consider actually improving the game.

I am sure we will have a few extras added on, maybe a couple gadgets or spy moves....but that is going to be seriously limited.  We really want it to feel like the game that we love so much...and that means being very careful about "improvements".

[Spekkio]

Thanks for that, goodkebab...

If you want a different experience with SvM, there's always DA and SC5...

[InvisibleMan999]

I guess I don't see the point of a complete clone.

I mean, granted it's not my time spent programming it, so if the programmers just want to create a pure clone, that's their prerogative but it seems like a waste of time to me. We already have CT programmed and ready to go if we're looking for an exact CT experience.

I just can't really see why we shouldn't try to improve the game? I mean, the nice thing is that we don't have to wait for UBI to produce an official patch or anything. The programmers can make one whenever they want. So we can totally change the rules for MT and see what it does, and if we don't like it, then we just change it back. It's really that simple. There's no shame in having balance patches to the mod.

It's not as though the first version we release is going to be the final anyway.

The only changes we actually have to worry about are ones that require any extra animations and difficult coding. That's problematic, because it takes a lot of time. But changing a few 'if' statements isn't even remotely difficult, and not even trying it because we're afraid it'll screw up the game is a pretty lame excuse, since changing it back is easy.

[Gui Brazil]

Right now we should be worrying about getting it 'cloned', and then, AFTER we have it done, think about doing such things if there's any need or if its worth. Beside, as Kebab said, we must be careful with what to change, since we want to stick with CT's gameplay/feeling and not turn it into another DA Failure.

[goodkebab]

nobody said we would stop at version 1.0

The point of making the clone is that we have to be strict on the vision of the project.  Everyone has an exact idea of CT, so they know what to expect of the project.  As a result of this, we wont waste time with experimental gameplay. We will just be lucky as hell to get it that far in the first place which is why we cannot afford to waste any resources.

For version 1.0 this is important because it will provide the foundation for whats to come.

So why bother making a mod?  Well, everyone on the team has their own reasons for that,  but the collective reason is that we will have the power to control the project, patches, etc etc.  while CT gradually loses interest.

[InvisibleMan999]

Well, I was thinking you could even get somethings done, just with an incomplete beta version.

I mean at some time we're going to be playtesting some of it, so the order in which you add things could very well let you try some new gameplay ideas.

For instance, if you program in MT last, and have a version like 0.8 or whatever in which there is no MT at all, you get to test that version for bugs and such, which you'll have to do anyway, and also get an idea if nerfing MT is possible in versions beyond 1.0. And in that case, it takes no programming time to do it, since it's simply testing the game without a feature you haven't added yet, and not actually changing anything.

So you sort of kill two birds with one stone there. If this 0.8 version happens to work out well, then you can have a nerfed MT in 1.0. If it works out terrible, then you just do what you were going to do and use the CT version of MT.

[goodkebab]

some changes are more then likely to creep into the game without us really trying to make them.   We obviously cannot clone the visuals....so things like MT and EMF will look visually different.

There have been a ton of threads already on how to make changes, and if we tried to take them all into account,  we would lose sight of the goal of making the game like CT. By trying to please everyone, you end  up pleasing no one. The more subtle the enhancement, the more likely it can make it into the game.

Something like 180 degree MT instead of 360 degree MT is an example of one of those changes.

Also,  I notice that there are a changes being asked that are  biased towards a persons preferance.  Tazer, EMF ghosting and quick cams are an example of these kinds of requests.

[Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet]

Something like 180 degree MT instead of 360 degree MT is an example of one of those changes.

lol i wanna see that in CT xD
btw - ever heard of a mod in CT that allowed 6 ppls o play on 1 serv??

[InvisibleMan999]

There have been a ton of threads already on how to make changes, and if we tried to take them all into account,  we would lose sight of the goal of making the game like CT. By trying to please everyone, you end  up pleasing no one. The more subtle the enhancement, the more likely it can make it into the game.

Well of course. Nobody is asking you to take every idea. I mean I've thrown up a bunch of ideas about things like fixing MT with the intention that you don't use all of them and only implement some of them. As the mod coder, you're going to be a much better judge on what stuff would be easier to code, and what things would be too difficult.

Something like 180 degree MT instead of 360 degree MT is an example of one of those changes.

Yeah, anything fundamentally numerical (as opposed to graphical), should be relatively easy to implement.  Then it's just a matter of balance testing. But since we're going to be requiring some basic tests to find bugs and such, we can also use that as a testing ground for balance as well.

As far as MT, I honestly think the best first experiment is to try the game without MT at all. This basically means that MT is the last vision that is coded and graphically created. See how it goes and it'll give you an idea as to how good MT should be if full stealth spies are walking all over the mercs, or the mercs are getting run over by aggro. That'll give you a great indicator as to how powerful MT needs to be and what  role it should fill (anti-aggro or anti-stealth, or both).

Also,  I notice that there are a changes being asked that are  biased towards a persons preferance.  Tazer, EMF ghosting and quick cams are an example of these kinds of requests.

Aside from the quick cam nerf (whcih is anti-aggro) I don't think any of those are preference based. The tazer changes are solely balance changes to make a relatively unused gadget viable again. While they do hurt aggro spies, the base intent of the change is not "lets screw over aggro spies", but rather "lets make the tazer decent enough so someone might actually take it instead of frags or a backpack."

As far as EMF ghosting, I've always considered that nothing more than a bug fix. The intent of EMF was that you couldn't see the spy, after all the designers made the spy transparent. EMF ghosting is a graphics bug that lets you see the spy in a vision mode you shouldn't be able to.

[Spekkio]

@Invisible,

I think you underestimate what a difference subtle changes can make. If you look at the actual changelog between CT and PT, there isn't a whole lot there. However, the two games play very, very differently.

A lot of people call for changes that are too drastic, which results in breaking the game in the other direction. I think Kebab is smart to want to keep the changes to a minimum. See below regarding your hangup with MT. There is nothing wrong with quick-cams.

@Kebab,

I think that the change in the way MT functions is more personal preference than buffing the tazer. No one takes the tazer unless they are fucking around or a total noob. That's the sign of something that is obviously not very useful. On the other hand, many people have been able to consistently overcome MT whoring, which is a sign that it's quite beatable. Yet the vision is still over-used, which that means that people interpret it to be too powerful (even though I think they are wrong)...the question is how to nerf the vision while keeping its functionality? Well, I've already proposed how to do that multiple times...force normal post render, add in the static noise from PT, and fix the dumb creeping on a slant sets off MT (which is a bug more than anything else imo), and you're set. You don't need to do anything along the lines of the MT-fix simply because the normal post-render takes care of that -- the added bluriness makes it very difficult to spot stationary spies at any reasonable distance. If you want, I can take screenshots to prove it (I have in the past and they might still be floating around ubi.com but I don't know). The 360 detection is necessary to fight off aggro spies, and the full second delay is time enough for a stealthy spy to get a grab on a merc before he gets the buzz noise and actually reacts to it.

When I wrote my list, I tried to keep personal preference out of it as much as possible. The map changes and the suggestion about the way the guns operate are the two things I would say are just personal preference. And even where there is personal preference, it's because I preferred the way something worked in Pandora to the way it works in Chaos. I don't think anything on that list that could qualify as personal preference is something that hasn't been done in either version of the game. Most of the stuff on there are small bugs and glitches that people use or deal with on a daily basis. I think if those were corrected, the game would play very differently, just like CT plays differently from PT.

[InvisibleMan999]

I think you underestimate what a difference subtle changes can make. If you look at the actual changelog between CT and PT, there isn't a whole lot there. However, the two games play very, very differently.

Well, sort of. You have to look both at quantity of changes as well as the effect of each individual change. The changes were few, but major. Taking away SS+Jump and double jump was a HUGE balance change. Also, addition of the gas mask was another big change.

As far as playing differently, I don't really think the games play all that differently, unless you're an aggro spy. Aggro went from shock-near-a-box to triple nade and quick cams. Stealth tactics really haven't changed much from PT to CT. Sure, you've got a few new gadgets, like the heartbeat sensor and camo, but for the most part, you play stealth the same way you always did. The biggest change to stealth was in fact the different levels, and the fact that CT level design had much fewer static defenses. But the actual game mechanics didn't impact stealth much at all.

You could port clubhouse to PT and the stealth aspect would be very similar.

There really hasn't been any significant changes to how to play stealthy. heartbeat and camo made some small additions, but the change hasn't been drastic.

You don't need to do anything along the lines of the MT-fix simply because the normal post-render takes care of that -- the added bluriness makes it very difficult to spot stationary spies at any reasonable distance.

Honestly having played the game on xbox, which is both normal post render and low resolution, I can say that you certainly can still see spies pretty well. It's not quite as bad as high post render, but you can still make out blobs in the dark.

Even with the limitations of the xbox, MT whoring is still the way to go, and that really does say something about exactly how powerful MT really is.

Now you're right about MT versus aggro, which is why I suggested a gradual MT detection system based both on merc orientation and on distance to the merc. So it works in 360 at close range, and as range increases becomes less and less useful at detection (the spy must move faster to set it off). This effectively handles the aggro situation while also making it possible to sneak behind the merc's back on large open rooms.

[Gui Brazil]

As far as playing differently, I don't really think the games play all that differently, unless you're an aggro spy.
[...]
There really hasn't been any significant changes to how to play stealthy.

According to it anyone that plays aggro was affected, so, just because it didn't cause any difference for you, it doesn't mean that it didn't for the other half of the community that plays differently.

[Spekkio]

Invisible, if you're going to say that stealth didn't change either, then you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Honestly having played the game on xbox, which is both normal post render and low resolution, I can say that you certainly can still see spies pretty well. It's not quite as bad as high post render, but you can still make out blobs in the dark.

I didn't say that it was going to eliminate it completely, I said it was enough. PC controls are better for both spies and mercs, so the mercs need to be more powerful to compensate for it.