The general opinion concerning aggro vs. stealth

[goodkebab]

honestly, mt whores dont bother me anymore....mostly because I have come to accept that crouching is far more useful then how i played a year ago. 

camo is very good against it as well....

[InvisibleMan999]

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

Care to elaborate? I mean honestly, it didn't seem to change my stealth tactics at all. The changes were fairly minor, besides the change in maps. 15 to 5 alarm snares, addition of HBS and camo. Merc lost 2 spytraps but gained a backpack (which more or less kept the amount of placeables almost constant). The change in maps was about the only thing that truly changed stealth, and possibly camnet slightly, but I consider that something else that's map dependent.

When I've played the old maps, like hospital or cinema on CT, the stealth aspect really hasn't changed much at all. No more horizontal spy traps and laser based traps are usually not spytraps but instead poison mines.

PC controls are better for both spies and mercs, so the mercs need to be more powerful to compensate for it.

What? Actually PC controls in their very nature greatly favor the merc. Playing on xbox, you'll hardly really notice much of a difference playing spy. As merc though, the fast turning rate and ability to aim inherent in a mouse is a great help over a rather clunky console controller.

The time it takes you to sweep a room with even the flashlight is dramatically less on PC, not to mention you can be spinning around a lot more. Also things like swapping and activating gas mask are much faster on PC as well. Really, the advantages almost all seem to go to the merc. In fact, when you jump on console, you can't even turn besides the quick turn manuever (whcih is a quick 180).

I don't think that mercs need to be more powerful at all. The PC merc makes the console merc look like crap.

[InvisibleMan999]

honestly, mt whores dont bother me anymore....mostly because I have come to accept that crouching is far more useful then how i played a year ago. 

camo is very good against it as well....

Well, honestly I'd like to do an experiment and try the game without MT at all and see how it plays. Not that I want to necessarily leave the game that way, but it'd be interesting to see how much MT is really needed and against what types of spies (aggro or stealth).

[goodkebab]

Sorry Invisible,  game testing is not going to work like that.  Some game features take several weeks of player experience to really master and develop strategies for, and until then they can be considered unbalanced or useless.  Every time there is a build to be tested,  all testers have to download the game, and play it for several hours, trying to break the game and not necessarily for fun.  It really is work...because the game is not finished, and features are not implimented, so things cannot be really judged until further into the project.  Testers wont be doing this because they want to have some gg's...


Also,  Spekkio is doing a great job of compiling a thread of  do's and dont's to inherit from CT.  Everyone is working together on building that thread, so feel free to contribute there.  Ct has thousands of hours of play testing on game balance, weapon balance....etc. etc....which why we want to use that as our goal.

We are not doing things on a whim.

[InvisibleMan999]

Well I was thinking just for a basic alpha version or something, where MT isn't in the game because it hasn't been coded yet (you could just code that last). So we get a chance to experiment with an MT-free game, and there's no cost of time, since the design team can be coding in MT while everyone else is testing out the MT-free alpha build or whatever.

Basically I'm not asking you to special code anything, just that you basically code in MT last, and release an alpha test version without MT. Obviously it isn't intented for a full balance test, but it's designed to see how people like playing the game without MT.

This is mainly because MT seems to be one of the most heated and controversial topics when asked about changes people want, so it'd be helpful to shed some light on how necessary MT really is.

[Gawain]

mt whoring is kinda overrated, and by taking away the shadow inversion and making everything more blurry so that stationary spies (especially with camo)can't be seen easily/at all, mt willl be quite nerfed at least in high skilled matchups. mt is only a problem with really unbalanced maps like deftech. invisibleman999, i think you have no idea of playing stealth effectively. i guess you have no good movement, and no idea about distraction and teamwork. you also have no idea about game testing and balancing. it's a process that takes a large amount of games and time...
regarding the tazer: it's ok if it pwns, because giving up one gadget slot is really significant.

[InvisibleMan999]

mt whoring is kinda overrated, and by taking away the shadow inversion and making everything more blurry so that stationary spies (especially with camo)can't be seen easily/at all, mt willl be quite nerfed at least in high skilled matchups.

Camo isn't a great help against MT because any merc can flick between MT and EMF with almost no change time, so switching to EMF. Hell, even a "n00b" like me does that...

invisibleman999, i think you have no idea of playing stealth effectively. i guess you have no good movement, and no idea about distraction and teamwork. you also have no idea about game testing and balancing. it's a process that takes a large amount of games and time...

Here comes the insults again. You have no idea what you're talking about, blah blah blah.

As far as stealth is concerned, I think our ideas of stealth are vastly different things. Your conception of stealth is shocking the merc and running. It's a lot like DA where the merc knows you're in the area, but is unsure of exactly where you are.

My idea of stealth is not letting the merc know you're even in the room, at least not until it's too late. You make him think you're somewhere else entirely through misdirection or just plain not being seen or detected. So all of a sudden you hear "tea room is being hacked", and it takes you by surprise. Or suddenly you just get grabbed out of nowhere. That's stealth to me. 

As far as game balance, um... I don't know how to break this to you, but CT isn't very balanced. It never was. Mercs win more games than spies. That's been a fact since the game was released and players have adapted. I'm more worried about making the game more fun, as opposed to trying to achieve some sort of balance that was never there to begin with.

The problem with DA wasn't that it was less balanced than CT, it was that it was just less fun. In fact, I think PT was probably more balanced in terms of spy vs merc win ratios, but it was less fun than CT, so we don't really use it as much.

[Gawain]

Camo isn't a great help against MT because any merc can flick between MT and EMF with almost no change time, so switching to EMF. Hell, even a "n00b" like me does that...

stfu
mt needs almost 1 second to detect movement (+ you need some time to perceive the full image and to react), so switching visions all the time is kinda useless + emf has a very limited range. btw, you complain about mt whoring, i mention camo, and you answer "but the merc can use emf".

frvge edit: no personal insults please, keep it to arguments that deal with the topic.

[goodkebab]

Although the spies are more difficult to play, I would not call them unbalanced.  Just because Mercs win more games, i would not call the sides unbalanced either.  Each gadget has a counter gadget.

What is NOT balanced are map designs,  which i suspect is deliberate in order to provide a broad spectrum of strategies.

That Mercs win more is not a problem.  Its what makes the game exciting to play as spy.

There are a lot of very good players out there that play awesome as spy....and having partnered with a couple of them, I have seen how they win with trickery and mind games against skilled mercs.  Those skills you bring to the game....not provided by the game itself.

[Gawain]

frvge edit: no personal insults please, keep it to arguments that deal with the topic.

some1 has to tell him that he has no idea what he's talking about. he's spamming complaints all the time just because he apparently has never adapted to the game and seen it's beauty, but want the game to change to fit his skills. if stealth is too easy, the gameplay will suck  ::)

What is NOT balanced are map designs,  which i suspect is deliberate in order to provide a broad spectrum of strategies.
That Mercs win more is not a problem.  Its what makes the game exciting to play as spy.

affirmative ;)

[Gui Brazil]

Invisible..have you noticed that you're the only one trying to take off MT out of the game?

Don't you think that maybe it's not something all that bad and you're simply pissed about it for some personal reason?

[Gawain]

Invisible..have you noticed that you're the only one trying to take off MT out of the game?

Don't you think that maybe it's not something all that bad and you're simply pissed about it for some personal reason?

now THIS sounds diplomatic ^^

[InvisibleMan999]

Although the spies are more difficult to play, I would not call them unbalanced.  Just because Mercs win more games, i would not call the sides unbalanced either.  Each gadget has a counter gadget.

What is NOT balanced are map designs,  which i suspect is deliberate in order to provide a broad spectrum of strategies.

That Mercs win more is not a problem.  Its what makes the game exciting to play as spy.

Well, note that I didn't say it was a problem, only that it was unbalanced. In a "balanced" game, spies and mercs would win an equal amount of times. Hence the whole balanced=equivalent situation. That isn't the case in CT, but it doesn't necessarily make a bad game, nor is it necessarily problematic. Nor am I saying we should necessarily aspire towards this sort of balance.

My point was that we're trying to make a fun game here, not necessarily a balanced game. The only real balance I'd like to achieve is gadget balance, where all gadgets are potentially chooseable (hence the taser upgrade).

mt needs almost 1 second to detect movement (+ you need some time to perceive the full image and to react), so switching visions all the time is kinda useless + emf has a very limited range. btw, you complain about mt whoring, i mention camo, and you answer "but the merc can use emf".

I consider an MT whore as a merc who never (or almost never) uses standard vision and spends the majority of his time in MT, with some toggling to EMF to detect spies shooting at him or using camo. Keep in mind that to avoid MT while camoed, you've got to move at your slowest speed, which gives the merc plenty of time to switch to EMF before you reach the next point of cover.

Yes, a good MT whore will toggle on EMF sometimes, but that's just another part of what makes MT so powerful is the fact that being in MT lets you switch to EMF and back almost instantly.

Invisible..have you noticed that you're the only one trying to take off MT out of the game?

Don't you think that maybe it's not something all that bad and you're simply pissed about it for some personal reason?

Note that I'm not saying to take it out of the game. Not the final build anyway. I'm just saying to have an experimental release without MT. Not so much with the purpose of eliminating it, but to get a good idea of why we really need MT.

I mean, who knows, maybe it will make for a game that's more fun. We really don't even know. I'm just saying to try it. It may suck, I don't know. but neither does anyone else really. I mean, I've played a few alternate rules games in CT with MT off, and honestly, I don't think it's impossible to detect spies that way. Trust me, the game doesn't fall apart, but it does allow for a lot more stealth opportunities. Now, if you have never played an alternate story game without MT, then you probably have less experience with this than I do.

But keep in mind this isn't a final change. I don't want to eliminate MT, I just want to isolate the reasons why MT is in the game. Do we have trouble seeing in the dark without MT? Do spies just sneak past us while our backs are turned adn there's nothing we can do? Are aggro spies abusing us?

Why do we need MT in the first place?

Thus far nobody really seems to be able to concretely answer that question, as basically right now, MT is good at almost everything. By taking it away we can really see where and why MT is needed, and what parts of MT we can live without.

I mean, I'm not the only one here suggesting that MT get nerfed in some way. Some people want to get rid of the shadow inversion, some people want a static sound, some people want to just turn the sound detector off while MT is active, others want an indicator on the merc's back that says when he's in MT. Others want the spy to be totally transparent on MT, like he is on EMF. Some people have concerns that a nerfed MT is going to make aggro powerful, other people think that MT is essential for detecting stealthy spies. What MT is supposed to do and what it's not supposed to do are hotly debated topics.

You can stop pretending that MT is all well and good, because almost everyone wants to nerf it in some way. The only question is how much of a nerf are we giving it and to what areas.

Taking it away for a trial version is going to help us determine what parts of MT are non-essential and can be nerfed. It's a lot better to handle that with an alpha version than to be constantly patching the actual full version. So while we're tracking down miscellaneous bugs in the mod code, we can also collect some information for game balance purposes.

Quite simply, the best way to determine why we need MT is to take it away for a bit and see what problems arise.

[Spekkio]

I'm seriously getting tired of reading all this MT crap from invisible...

1. As far as the controls, both sides have it much easier. On a keyboard you have access to a dozen different buttons using all 5 fingers, plus 3-5 more buttons on a mouse + scroll wheel. On an xbox controller, you are using two fingers to access 6-8 buttons.

What that means is that keys on the PC do not have to have double-functions (although sadly too many do in SvM because ubi is lazy...such as use/melee/grab/elbow/heal being piled onto one button. A separate control scheme for spy and merc would be great but oh well). Try to triple nade on xbox with the same speed as the PC player, or do a silent dive, or simultaneously dive/switch vision/throw a grenade. They can't be done on the Xbox, but they can on the PC. Not to mention aiming is much, much better on both sides, although the spies get the short end of the stick because of shitty XBox code making its way in (nothing that can't be fixed by altering your sensitivity, though).

2. Being that you play Xbox, I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money you're nowhere as good as many of the PC players still playing the game and many who have since quit. As such, you really shouldn't be speaking on the balance of the game as if you are the end-all authority.
2a. If you can't get by 640x480 blurry ass MT on a merc sniping with a joystick, you just suck and need to learn to play better. There's nothing else to it.
2b. Yes, I can play without MT. I can probably play without any single equipment, vision, or gadget piece. So what? Does the fact that I can win without taking camnet mean that we should remove it out of the game? Of course not. Almost every spy takes sticky cams because it offers them an additional way to KO the mercs. Should we remove sticky cams too because we have cam whores? That was a rhetorical question, fyi. Your argument is asinine. MT is a tool, and a very useful one at that. Some people prefer to use this tool more than others, just like some people like to constantly switch between camnet cameras or spam grenades with double backpack. You know what? That's there perogative if they choose to do that. Just because you don't like it and can't figure out a way to get past it doesn't mean we need to remove it from the game, or go through hours upon hours of playtesting to satisfy something that we already know: MT doesn't need the drastic changes you are calling for.
2c. Stop fucking whining about MT. Seriously. It's getting annoying. You turn every thread on here into a whinefest about how the people working on PS need to nerf MT into oblivion. We get your argument, and sorry but most people disagree with you.

3. Regarding how stealth has changed, remember that in PT: spy bullets made noise so you had no silent reconnaissance, you couldn't use ropes/ziplines/fences/pipes/ladders without being heard anywhere on the map, if your feet left the ground there was no way to avoid pinging the reticle, there were 3,009 more motion sensors, lasers and cameras in almost every map, and MT was more sensitive. If you don't think that all that changes the dynamics of stealth gameplay, well, then I really don't know what to tell you other than lrn2play.

What is NOT balanced are map designs,  which i suspect is deliberate in order to provide a broad spectrum of strategies.

I agree, but maps like Warehouse, Deftech, and Bank were created when spies could SS+ jump, mercs had no gasmask, KO time was 20 (25?) seconds instead of 15, and the shock immunity was 3x shorter. When I loaded up PT and played with Valserp, Mr.Mic and Psychic not too long ago, Warehouse was actually a close game given all that. Ubi just never adjusted these maps to account for the nerfs to aggro, but I do think that maps should encompass a wide variety of preferences of playstyle like they do now.

As far as mercs winning more, the team on defense is always going to have an advantage. That's something that comes along with defense and having a fixed number of entry points/objectives. As such, the merc winrate should be higher than the spy winrate just for that alone. The fun of the game is overcoming that as spy.

[Daybreak]

BOOSH!!