balancing of sticky cams

[Spekkio]

You cannot up the ROF of the rifle past PT without making it totally fucked up with a scope. Sure, it's fine without the scope, but uzi + sniper = wayyy op.

that's the crucial point. i think it's possible to find a balanced rof, and you don't.
tbh i think that ct/pt rifle un-scoped would do pretty well in medium range with better netcode. just imagine everyone gots the often flamed host-sniper/uzi...

It is possible to find a balanced ROF, and we already have it.

[InvisibleMan999]

It is possible to find a balanced ROF, and we already have it.

You're arguing two points that are contradictory.

First, you're saying the RoF is fine.

And you're also saying the rifle sucks without the scope. (indicating that the rifle as a non-sniping weapon is in fact, not fine)

If we go to a one weapon system, those two can't be mutually true. 

[Gawain]

no he doesn't.
i think that a slight increase in rof would be sufficient to make the rife a balanced medium range weapon. of course, uzi+scope would be imba, and i'm well aware of the fact that it'll be hard to balance the rof so that scope is neither mandatory nor overpowered.
a 3 weapon system wouldn't make much sense, because the shotty is impossible to balance. i'm more in favor of one weapon than two, as it's the main weapon of the merc and it's better if it does always the same damage in medium range so that the spies have something they can rely on. the long-term balance work get's easier this way, too. 

[InvisibleMan999]

i think that a slight increase in rof would be sufficient to make the rife a balanced medium range weapon. of course, uzi+scope would be imba, and i'm well aware of the fact that it'll be hard to balance the rof so that scope is neither mandatory nor overpowered.

Well I would never really see a scope as being mandatory. The scope has specific uses: Firing long range, and going for headshots on hacking spies, and that's it. Aside from that, the rifle should be built so that it can hold its own as a standalone weapon. If you need to zoom to hit a spy in standard combat, the RoF/damage is clearly not good enough. Sniping should be its own thing.

Now on certain levels, like station, people will want to be sniping, on other levels, like clubhouse, it may not be nearly as mandatory and people could go without. If you want that added boost of being able to snipe a spy who is hacking, then you have to pay a gadget slot and I think that's fine.

[Spekkio]

It is possible to find a balanced ROF, and we already have it.

You're arguing two points that are contradictory.

First, you're saying the RoF is fine.

And you're also saying the rifle sucks without the scope. (indicating that the rifle as a non-sniping weapon is in fact, not fine)

If we go to a one weapon system, those two can't be mutually true. 

Now you're really fishing:

The ROF is fine given that the rifle has a scope on it no matter what. The rifle's strength is long-range; it's weakness is short-range. This is not inconsistent with the fact that I believe if you increase the ROF to make the rifle a more viable stand-alone weapon, you will make it OP with a scope on it because it will have no weakness. If you leave the ROF alone, you will make it UP without a scope on it because it will have both short and long range weakness.

There is nothing contradictory about that. Get it now?

i think that a slight increase in rof would be sufficient to make the rife a balanced medium range weapon. of course, uzi+scope would be imba, and i'm well aware of the fact that it'll be hard to balance the rof so that scope is neither mandatory nor overpowered.

You (the collective you) still haven't answered the question: why even bother? There is nothing wrong with the way the rifle works in PT (going with a single weapon) or CT (going with 3 more specialized weapons). I can see no way that making the scope a gadget would enhance gameplay, and it would only detract from it by clogging another slot with a mandatory item (either scope or tazer). If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Gawain]

i'm totally fine with pt/ct rifle as the only weapon and pt tazer as a gadget. in a later step we could also add uzi
thing is, i can imagine that 5 slots for merc still pwn 5 slots for spies balance like; making scope taking a slot and slightely increasing rof could be an elegant solution though i think that the most important factor for balance is map design.

[Spekkio]

thing is, i can imagine that 5 slots for merc still pwn 5 slots for spies balance like; making scope taking a slot and slightely increasing rof could be an elegant solution though i think that the most important factor for balance is map design.

That prediction is impossible to make at this point. First, because fixing the bugs in itself is going to tip balance. Second because we don't have 5 gadgets at this point. The 5 gadget thing was a suggestion to be tested; it is not something set in stone and should not serve as the sole reason for making the scope a gadget. Hell, the problem with 5 gadgets could very well be that triple nade/snare/cams and triple nade/bullet/cams is way too strong. Seefoo's suggestion of giving the mercs gasmask and spies camo inherently might be better than 5 gadgets outright. The more I think about it, the more I like Seefoo's idea. Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, making 5 gadgets only to convert the scope to one of them is counter-productive.

The PT tazer is overboard. A happy medium would be nice.

[InvisibleMan999]

Now you're really fishing:

The ROF is fine given that the rifle has a scope on it no matter what. The rifle's strength is long-range; it's weakness is short-range.

Which is fine for a 3 weapon system, but not good for a one weapon system, where one gun is supposed to do it all. In a 3 weapon system, you want a gun that's decent at all three ranges, but not really great anywhere. Then you can add gadgets to make the merc better at certain areas.

It makes no sense to say that by default all mercs are weak at short range and awesome at long range. Because some players don't want that. Most players just want a decent gun that kills spies with its base autofire. So if you're relying on everyone to be a sniper, that's a mistake.

This is not inconsistent with the fact that I believe if you increase the ROF to make the rifle a more viable stand-alone weapon, you will make it OP with a scope on it because it will have no weakness.

If it didn't cost a gadget slot to get the scope, it would be overpowered. That's why it costs a gadget slot, to balance out the fact that you pay something to be able to snipe at long range. So maybe now you don't have frags or don't have mines or don't have something else that would otherwise hinder the spy?

You (the collective you) still haven't answered the question: why even bother? There is nothing wrong with the way the rifle works in PT (going with a single weapon) or CT (going with 3 more specialized weapons). I can see no way that making the scope a gadget would enhance gameplay, and it would only detract from it by clogging another slot with a mandatory item (either scope or tazer). If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

All this stuff applies to a single gun system, so you can stop talking about 3 guns. This is at least the second time I've said this and I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

As for the single gun, it makes no sense to have awesome sniping capability and mediocre medium range as the default. As a merc you need to be good at medium range, but sniping and great close combat is something extra.

It makes no sense to try to stick with the CT style of having the rifle's weakness be short range if you don't even get a choice of a balanced weapon. Medium range has to be the default, because it's where most of the action takes place. People should get a balanced weapon by default, reasonably good at all ranges (similar to the uzi), and if they want to add long range or better short range, that can be a gadget.

That makes a hell of a lot more sense than just telling people "learn to snipe n00bs, you're gonna play the game my way, or you're gonna suck ass!" Because that's basically what you're saying. The rifle pretty much sucks and it's only redeeming quality is that you can snipe people. So going to a one gun system means that all mercs have to be snipers as their main means of killing spies.

Screw that. Maybe you like sniping as your playstyle and that's fine, but gimping everyone else with a crappy general purpose gun so you can keep your beloved sniper scope for free is completely illogical.

Sure, we can have a sniper rifle as a choice if we stick with 3 weapons, but I'll be damned if the default gun is going to suck normally and have sniping as the only redeeming factor. Sniping can be optional, holding your own up at medium and close range isn't. Don't force your playstyle on everyone else.

[Spekkio]

You're ignoring something completely: my suggestion on giving one gun that is a sniper rifle is based upon PT, where I believe that giving mercs just a sniper rifle was superior than weakening the rifle and specializing the weapons even more. This is why I kept referencing the game.

In other words, this is not a new idea. It is a reversion to an old system that worked better than the new system. The PT rifle is about as perfectly balanced as you can get it. It has superb long-range capability in the hands of a skillfull player and sufficient enough at medium range given that ability. The mercs have an inherent buff to short range via the bullcharge. If that is insufficient, you can also take the tazer.

Furthermore, I don't believe we need to incorporate uber spray weapons like the uzi or a juiced up rifle because some people might not be able to aim. lrn2play. For the record, I'm not even close to one of the best snipers in the game. I'm in favor of this system because it rewards skill.

Your entire post is theoretical bullshit.

[Gawain]

spekkio you're right, without shotty and uzi a "happy medium" tazer would be tempting enough to take.

indeed the pt sniper was balanced quite perfectly. anyways the sniper rifle will be way stronger  for midrange (unzoomed) with a better mouse implementation (smaller mouse grid, fps > 31) and less lagg bs. making scope take a slot only came to my mind because it seems quite possible with 5 slots. but when i think closer on it, probably the spies get more advantages from 5 slots because the mercs don't have any more lethal gadgets than tazer.

maybe triple nades should be banned generally. i'm well aware that you totally give up either stickies or recon for it, but it gives too much aggro possibilities to a single spy (2 spies can always complement one another with different kind of nades). if triple nades stay in the game, the tazer should be closer to the pt one.
we could also make the close quarter combat more sophisticated and allow pushing the merc into the arms of the other spy for everyone (host only atm) (and keep the animation after charging of course) so that the tazer becomes more interesting.

[Spekkio]

Well, this is where seefoo's idea gets interesting. Triple nades and camo don't particularly go well together, so you're still giving up something integral to use them (two of snares, bullets, or cams).

[B1nArY_001]

There are people who really prefer a specific weapon for a specific map. There's no reason to not include a high rof weapon and a shotgun. Levels where sniping is practically useless it would be better to opt for powerful short/medium range weapon if your encounters are going to be mostly short range. Yes I know none of the PT, CT maps are designed in such a way that sniping is useless but those maps aren't going to be included in PS so we can't base the decision off of that information.

[Spekkio]

To that I say two things:

-Wouldn't we presume that PS maps incorporate many of the concepts from PT/CT maps that worked? In other words, it would be hard to conceive a map where sniping had little or no use.
-The tazer, if made viable, will more than compensate for any claustrophobic maps.

[B1nArY_001]

To that I say two things:

-Wouldn't we presume that PS maps incorporate many of the concepts from PT/CT maps that worked? In other words, it would be hard to conceive a map where sniping had little or no use.
-The tazer, if made viable, will more than compensate for any claustrophobic maps.

A map that was, for example, an office building with lots of hallways, cubicles and offices would provide a much better environment for a shotgun. In an environment where the spy can duck behind a cubicle wall, into an office, a corner or behind any number of office machines it would be better to have a weapon that is just point and shoot rather than the .5 second delay between scoping and being able to fire. In half a second a spy can easily move out of line of sight or damn close.

PS will involve a lot more stealth and one of the ways to make this possible is to create larger or more detailed rooms with more objects and shadows to move through intensifying the cat and mouse game. We have a much better engine to work with and it will allow us to create much more detailed true to life environments. UT3 is designed to display massively detailed levels with characters ranging from 5k-8k polygons and in far greater numbers than the maximum of 4 being rendered as a spy in 3rd person, only 3 when a merc. This leaves a lot of untapped performance potential that can be used to create some pretty fantastic environments. I'm actually really really (yes two reallys) looking forward to completing one of the maps I created for CT but never finished due to the lack of vertex animation available in the editor. This will of course have to wait until PS is done but I'm pretty excited about the level of detail I'm going to be able to achieve with unreal3.

[Spekkio]

My point is that a cluttered map like that might not be very fun to play in general.