How do you think PS would play if the spy had a pistol?

[DreadStunLock]

I would like to see a tazer buff if there is going to be implemented. Maybe something like 10-15 yards?

How many "yards" does it go now!? At 10-15 yards (in my head) it seems like you'd be able to stand at one side of a hallway and hit someone all the way at the other end  :o

Didn't someone used to say in PT it was 20 yards!?

[Cronky]

I think you're talking about feet, not yards.



3 feet = 1 yard
(the picture isn't actual size, just used to reinforce the conversion) ;)

If the spy is around 6 feet tall then he is the equivalent of 2 yards.

So... unless the PT tazer was shootin' for the moon (or 1/5 of a football field), then I doubt it had a 20 yard distance.

[DreadStunLock]

Hmmm, maybe you are right because I cannot really remember if I had my CT units set to feet or yards >< Bullshit option anyway :/

[Ion.67]

Sweet. But how many yards in a mile? Someone help me out plz

[DreadStunLock]

1 mile = 1760 yards

1 yard = 0.000568181818 miles

GOOGLEZ ITZ

[frvge]

lol at stupid numbers. Metric system is a lot easier to calculate with. Base 10 ftw!

[CurdyMilk]

lol at stupid numbers. Metric system is a lot easier to calculate with. Base 10 ftw!

Coming from an american, I agree.

[monterto]

A points based score system might make this work. Spies complete objectives and score points, everytime they shoot a merc they lose points. If can create tension betwee nteh decisions each team has to make then you are already shaping up to have a good game.

This was actually discussed in-depth when the CT community tourney was held back in the day as a possibility to avoid endless ties.

The overall consensus was that a points system would be bad for the game. There are times when the mercs might concede an objective in order to clamp down on a certain portion of the map (For example, if the spies got Main Hall first in Factory, the mercs probably aren't going to guard the coop objective in there as closely as the other two rooms because you can't win the game in Main Hall). Making objectives worth points would ruin that aspect of strategy because it makes all objectives equally important.  Ultimately, most people didn't want to "lose" the round by beating the spies but conceding an objective that they didn't guard on purpose because the spies had a bad gameplan.

Also, the current game dynamics REWARD spies for killing a merc on the whole. You get 15 seconds of a merc OOC, then he has to get back to wherever you are, plus he only has 3 lives. If you kill the mercs 6 times, you win. On top of that, most maps in the game cannot be won without neutralizing a merc because they will eventually be able to guard all objectives simultaneously between the two of them. I don't know where people get the silly idea from that the game is made so that you shouldn't kill mercs or that there should be some big penalty for it, since that is clearly not the case from both the gameplay and the subtitle Stealth Action Multiplayer. This opinion seems to come from people who are beat by two aggro spies and think it's not the way they "should" play. I never had that much of an issue with most aggro spies, and sometimes the change of pace was more fun and intense than playing against people who you never see. I don't think that such a drastic change in the game dynamic is warranted; personally, I'd like to see winning via elimination to be more viable choice.

I agree with this, however if you make the assumption that the spies have bullets, I'm sure that a points system is the only way to make the game fair. Since spies with bullets is that last thing anyone wants it is clearly irrelevant.

After playing startcraft for so many years I've come to appreciate the value of a dynamic, multi-dimensional game. Aggro should be viable as well as pure stealth. The hard part is designing the weapons, gadgets and maps in a way that makes spies difficult to find and kill when they are sneaking, but not too difficult to kill when they decide to play agressively and eliminate the mercs.

[Wh1tE_Dw4rF]

A points based score system might make this work. Spies complete objectives and score points, everytime they shoot a merc they lose points. If can create tension betwee nteh decisions each team has to make then you are already shaping up to have a good game.

This was actually discussed in-depth when the CT community tourney was held back in the day as a possibility to avoid endless ties.

The overall consensus was that a points system would be bad for the game. There are times when the mercs might concede an objective in order to clamp down on a certain portion of the map (For example, if the spies got Main Hall first in Factory, the mercs probably aren't going to guard the coop objective in there as closely as the other two rooms because you can't win the game in Main Hall). Making objectives worth points would ruin that aspect of strategy because it makes all objectives equally important.  Ultimately, most people didn't want to "lose" the round by beating the spies but conceding an objective that they didn't guard on purpose because the spies had a bad gameplan.

Also, the current game dynamics REWARD spies for killing a merc on the whole. You get 15 seconds of a merc OOC, then he has to get back to wherever you are, plus he only has 3 lives. If you kill the mercs 6 times, you win. On top of that, most maps in the game cannot be won without neutralizing a merc because they will eventually be able to guard all objectives simultaneously between the two of them. I don't know where people get the silly idea from that the game is made so that you shouldn't kill mercs or that there should be some big penalty for it, since that is clearly not the case from both the gameplay and the subtitle Stealth Action Multiplayer. This opinion seems to come from people who are beat by two aggro spies and think it's not the way they "should" play. I never had that much of an issue with most aggro spies, and sometimes the change of pace was more fun and intense than playing against people who you never see. I don't think that such a drastic change in the game dynamic is warranted; personally, I'd like to see winning via elimination to be more viable choice.

The most logical counter to killing mercs would be to reduce mission time by XX seconds every time you kill a merc.

If go after the merc on too many occasions you run out of time to get the objectives. This prevents spy teams from killing mercs instead of doing their objectives.

Aggressive spies don't need full mission time to win anyway and if they do that's probably because they are incompetent at aggro-style gameplay.

I think this would somewhat be an interesting addition since you need at least some experience to be competitive as an aggressive spy, so this wouldn't hurt new players for instance.
It would be nice to see perks for different kind of playing.
Maybe even something that gives stealthy spies more mission time if they manage to complete an objective without being visually seen by a merc.

Thoughts?

[DreadStunLock]

Instead reducing it by XX seconds, you should do it by the percentage of the total, for example.

Mercenaries start with 3 lives.

Spies start with 4 lives.

Now, if the spy team kills the mercenaries 6 times, it's game over.

Now I am not great with maths but say it was 1v1 and the mercenary had 2 lives and spy had 3.

If a spy kills the mercenary with a gun, he would get -50% of his time, if he does it again, -50% again and then he will lose because the whole 100% of his time is deducted, same with the more amount of lives, the only reason I did it in such a weird way because I am not the best at math :P

And the reason why I am saying this is because spies always spawn with the most lives, and they can use those lives to kill the first or both of the mercenaries fully just buy shooting him and respawning till they both lose their lives, and if a mercenary goes 1v1 against a spy on 2v2 map, the outcome will surely go hugely in favor for the spy.

So it definitely should reduce it by the percentage instead of set amount of seconds.

[puuusianka]

Ok example to explain that in some cases you are not definetly precise:
10 mins

spy kills a merc. - 5 mins

spy: oh shit 5 mins! Let's kill him fast!

Spy kills merc. - 2.5 mins

merc:phew just 2.5 min to cover my ass from this predator!!!

Spy attacks again... Killls a merc. - 1.25 min

well who cares it's the end of the game.

[DreadStunLock]

Well not exactly like that, if it's 1v1 it should be something like this.

10 Minutes.

Spy kills a mercenary -50% 5 minutes.

Spy kills a mercenary again -50% of the total time given at the start means -5 minutes.

You lose the game.

And only if a mercenary has 2 lives, if more it has to be divided even more.

[NeoSuperior]

I just got an idea:

How about making the spy unable to grab for 5-10 sec after having recieved damage BY A MERC (fall damage is not included) because... well its just stupid if the spy flashspams in DM (or chaff+flash - spams in story) and grabs after that...

[DreadStunLock]

Well don't you think if you get grabbed because they do that....is kind of noobish?

[Ion.67]

Seriously? The dumbest things get discussed. Just my two cents:

Leave the game dynamics the way they are.