balancing of sticky cams

[Farley4Fan]

This idea is just simply dumb.  Just balance out the uzi and shotty.  The reason why people didn't take Uzi as much as rifle isn't because of lag!  It is because it is totally useless at long range.  Some of the only maps I use Uzi on is either Warehouse, Aqua, or Museum ( sometimes ).  Other than that, I will stick with something that I can actually kill someone a long ways away with.

If for some reason we are only designing one weapon, which I didn't hear about, then of course there would have to be an attachment feature.

[Spekkio]

Adding the scope as a gadget that competes with all the other stuff is a terrible idea. It's up there with giving spies knives and giving mercs the ability to fart proxies in a firefight. It would have absolutely no effect on enhancing gameplay (you "gmo add scope gadget" crowd have not even begun to explain how it would make gameplay better), and would probably detract from it.

In scenario A, we go with the PT-style rifle. This gun is in no way as effective in CQB as the uzi; the ROF shoots 30 rounds in 10 (maybe 12, I haven't been playing much lately so I forgot) seconds rather than 25. Ubi coded all full auto guns in PT/CT to empty their clips in the same amount of time. Thus in the game code only the magazine size changes and the ROF just follows suit. That's a 17% difference -- which equates to less than 1 round/sec buff. Basically, the full-auto capability of this gun would be nothing to write home about, thus pretty much forcing you to take the scope. Oh, and the PT rifle did less damage per shot.

Oh, but then you say add attachments! No...just no. Again, you're adding an obligatory gadget. Without any attachments, the PT rifle would absolutely suck as a weapon, and the mercs would have no way to kill spies other than using gadgets which have a limited supply.

Why bother adding a 5th slot if you're just going to add another obligatory gadget? The point of my 5 slots idea was so that you had more room for the 'optional' stuff -- flares, tazer and spy traps, and not so that you can just add another "must-have" gadget. If you don't take the tazer, you still have the bullcharge and berserk to help you in CQB, but those maneuvers are riskier. That is the tradeoff. If you don't take the scope on the rifle, you're stuck with a weapon that can't do anything. There is no tradeoff there. Rifle without scope = suck, rifle with scope = good.

Then there's the possibility of going with the CT weapons...then what? Is the scope only compatible with the rifle, or are we going to be sniping people with the shotty now? If it's the former, you are again forced to take the scope since the rifle cannot stand alone as a viable weapon; the latter is just absurd.

Just drop this inane idea, please.

[Farley4Fan]

Exactly Spekkio^

I say we move back on topic, balancing of sticky cams.  I designed a few new looks for sticky cams that might work out pretty well.  Their physics make sense in a game like CT.  Pretty much the spikes stick into the surface, they can rotate on a little ball axis, and they have vents around the lenses like other people have suggested.  What do you think about this new look?



This one has less spikes but they are larger ones.

[Spekkio]

A 3-spiked sticky cam? Why not just shoot the merc in the neck with 'em  :D. They actually look decent, although I do prefer Daybreak's incarnation.

[Farley4Fan]

Lol, who cares in the game world, it isn't about realism anyways.  :D

[Westfall]

It seems that this is what the creators have produced as the sticky cam, now called "Epoxy Cam"

http://projectstealth.splintercellnetwork.com/index.php/topic,484.0.html

[Farley4Fan]

Oh, that was final?  Awesome, guess I don't need to design stickies anymore lol

Now, onto bullets, snares, and nades  ;D

The name actually works, saw a special that talked about epoxy and everything, very nice.

[InvisibleMan999]

It would have absolutely no effect on enhancing gameplay (you "gmo add scope gadget" crowd have not even begun to explain how it would make gameplay better), and would probably detract from it.

Well, perhaps it's because I liked the idea in CT how some mercs were good close combat, some were good at general purpose firing and others were snipers. The idea that everyone is a sniper kinda sucks IMO.

Oh, but then you say add attachments! No...just no. Again, you're adding an obligatory gadget. Without any attachments, the PT rifle would absolutely suck as a weapon, and the mercs would have no way to kill spies other than using gadgets which have a limited supply.

I killed lots of spies with the PT rifle in basic mode.

And I hardly think scope is an obligatory gadget. It's good yes, but not obligatory. I got by in CT using the uzi pretty much as my staple gun and it worked fine. I can say that no, you don't need a sniping scope. There was only a few levels where I felt sniping was necessary (like polar base). Yes, there are a lot of players who would probably take scope as one of their main gadgets, but it's by no means a must-take. Honestly I would probably take spytraps over scope on most levels, but I'm not really a sniping merc.

It's a general play-style choice and that's fine. Just like aggro spies almost always take flashbangs and stealth spies rarely do. I mean, that's okay. It's alright if different play styles have obligatory gadgets, you just don't want the gadget obligatory for everyone, and believe me. I don't consider the scope obligatory.

Then there's the possibility of going with the CT weapons...then what? Is the scope only compatible with the rifle, or are we going to be sniping people with the shotty now? If it's the former, you are again forced to take the scope since the rifle cannot stand alone as a viable weapon; the latter is just absurd.

Well no, if you're going with CT weapons, then you obviously don't have the scope as a choice. In fact, you probably don't even want the tazer as a gadget, since it invalidates the shotgun. Of course, then you probably don't want to go wtih the PT rifle, since the rifle in CT is deliberately supposed to be an inferior choice at medium and short range compared to the other weapons.

[Spekkio]

Well, perhaps it's because I liked the idea in CT how some mercs were good close combat, some were good at general purpose firing and others were snipers. The idea that everyone is a sniper kinda sucks IMO.

So then you'd be in favor of keeping the 3 CT weapons. That's fine. However, none of that forces you to use up a gadget slot, and it ought to stay that way.

And I hardly think scope is an obligatory gadget. It's good yes, but not obligatory. I got by in CT using the uzi pretty much as my staple gun and it worked fine. I can say that no, you don't need a sniping scope. There was only a few levels where I felt sniping was necessary (like polar base). Yes, there are a lot of players who would probably take scope as one of their main gadgets, but it's by no means a must-take. Honestly I would probably take spytraps over scope on most levels, but I'm not really a sniping merc

The uzi at full-auto != rifle at full auto, in either game. It is much, much stronger. It has over 2x the ROF, less bullet spread, more ammo capacity, and does 2/3 the damage. Using the rifle solely full-auto is not a viable weapon. Yea, you'll kill people every so often, but now the spies have two ways to stay away from you and you have a counter to neither: keep at range or double team you.

Go ahead, try playing CT with the rifle and no scope at all. I guaruntee you won't do much. Wait, you play Xbox, right? So sniping probably already plays no role whatsoever.

Well no, if you're going with CT weapons, then you obviously don't have the scope as a choice. In fact, you probably don't even want the tazer as a gadget, since it invalidates the shotgun. Of course, then you probably don't want to go wtih the PT rifle, since the rifle in CT is deliberately supposed to be an inferior choice at medium and short range compared to the other weapons.

Why wouldn't you want the tazer as a gadget, period? It in no way invalidates the shotgun or vice-versa. They function entirely differently. A spy hit by the tazer will fall down for 10 seconds and lose half his health. A spy hit by the shotgun, assuming he wasn't killed, will continue to just run away. Furthermore, the shotgun has a longer range than the tazer. Even if the shotty did invalidate the tazer, there are two other guns where the tazer could be useful, and a merc with a shotty has next to no long-range capability at all, so he's already paying for the extra slot he can use elsewhere.

Obviously the talk of the PT rifle behavior is only if you get rid of uzi/shotgun. If those two weapons stay then you leave the rifle as-is. Only adjustment I'd make is upping the magazine capacity to 30 and lowering the uzi's total rounds to 300 to make them more in-line with each other.

Still, you ignored my argument entirely. The only thing you said is that "having everyone with a rifle would be bad," and that "the scope wouldn't be obligatory," using the uzi as your example. We're not talking about a scope on the uzi; we're talking about a scope on the rifle. We already have a system in CT where people can choose different weapons. How is it going to enhance gameplay to move those weapons to a gadget slot?

[Gawain]

well, simply take the pt rifle with rof somewhere balanced between uzi and sniper and 30 bullets per magazine. if the scope is an obligatory choice for every good player, you would be right. but with the right rof AND other boosted/improved gadgets like tazer and phosphorous nades, i'm sure it would be a tuff choice to make.
i'm ok with scope being included with the gun, but if it takes one slot it could help balancing down the mercs a little bit and would allow for more different eq loadouts.
anyway, 5 slots and one gun would already be a really big improvement.

[Farley4Fan]

Attachments are totally fine as long as they have the same functions as CT guns and they don't take up a slot.  Making one uber gun that has different functions that you can change before the game starts is good, but having it take up a slot is bad.  There would be no point to 5 slots if it just brings you down to 4 again.

[InvisibleMan999]

So then you'd be in favor of keeping the 3 CT weapons. That's fine. However, none of that forces you to use up a gadget slot, and it ought to stay that way.

Well, sort of. I liked the basic set up in CT where you paid for various aspects. Though CT was based on a give and take. If you took shotgun for instance, your close combat was great, but your medium range was lacking, and long range was non-existent. If you took the rifle, you weren't great in short and decent in medium, and had great long range attacks. The uzi (ignoring lag issues) was the balanced weapon.

Now that sort of worked and I'd be fine if we just decided to go that route.

That works when the tazer sucked. However, once the tazer becomes good, it's possible to get good short range combat skills with any weapon. This makes the shotgun pointless. You're giving up medium/long range attacks for the ability to own at close range, only a gadget will already let you do that.

So now your choices are uzi and rifle. The faster RoF from the uzi caused lag issues, so we probably want to eliminate the uzi. Still people want a gun that's decent at medium range, so we can use the old PT rifle or maybe even a slightly enhanced PT rifle.

Taking the tazer one step further, we say "if you want to own at short range, take a tazer, if you want to own at long range take the scope."

That in my opinion creates a nice logical symmetry of gadgets.

The uzi at full-auto != rifle at full auto, in either game. It is much, much stronger. It has over 2x the ROF, less bullet spread, more ammo capacity, and does 2/3 the damage. Using the rifle solely full-auto is not a viable weapon. Yea, you'll kill people every so often, but now the spies have two ways to stay away from you and you have a counter to neither: keep at range or double team you.

Well I would have no problem upping the rifle a bit. The idea is that I want a base weapon similar to the uzi, but minus the lag issues. Then you can throw on other gadgets, like the scope or the tazer, to improve your ability at other ranges.

Go ahead, try playing CT with the rifle and no scope at all. I guaruntee you won't do much. Wait, you play Xbox, right? So sniping probably already plays no role whatsoever.

Yeah if this were Xbox, I wouldn't seriously care about a scope. The scope ain't worth jack there. On PC though, it's totally another story, you can snipe so fast that good snipers use it at medium range as well as short. Anytime you're stationary hacking an objective, you're vulnerable to a quick head shot. If it's a host sniper that shot can sometimes get you before you even see the merc round the corner.

Seriously, the scope is awesome on PC.

Why wouldn't you want the tazer as a gadget, period? It in no way invalidates the shotgun or vice-versa.

Yeah it does.

Giving up medium to long range power for good short range attack is pointless if a gadget can do the same thing and let you either have an uzi or rifle too. In CT if I was facing an aggro team, I'd sometimes take the shotty, but if I can just take a good PT style tazer, I'd rather have that and an uzi. It's just more versatile. 

Obviously the talk of the PT rifle behavior is only if you get rid of uzi/shotgun. If those two weapons stay then you leave the rifle as-is.

Yeah, in which case the scope as a gadget makes little sense. I'm assuming this is a one weapon system. Otherwise really, the tazer doesn't make much sense either.

Still, you ignored my argument entirely. The only thing you said is that "having everyone with a rifle would be bad," and that "the scope wouldn't be obligatory," using the uzi as your example. We're not talking about a scope on the uzi; we're talking about a scope on the rifle. We already have a system in CT where people can choose different weapons. How is it going to enhance gameplay to move those weapons to a gadget slot?

Quite simply, because it allows more choice.

All mercs should be effective at medium range, being great at close range or long range should be a privilege. By moving these benefits to gadgets, it keeps CT's counter system without going overboard in the way that CT did, where you give up too much. If you took the shotty in CT and the other team didn't go aggro, you were screwed. I mean plain and simple, you were there holding your n00b-tube, and there was nothing you could do to people that just decided to avoid you. So really having no medium/long range ability at all is far too much of a disadvantage. At least with short range superiority as a gadget you can guess wrong and still have a remote chance of winning.

And as I said, sniping is awesome on PC. It really should cost you something to be able to snipe people.

[Spekkio]

A few points, since I don't feel like copy-pasting everything:

-You are neglecting the fact that the tazer takes up a gadget slot already. That means you have to give something up to "own at close range" as it is. Even with 5 slots, the decision to take tazer is not easy in lieu of frags, mines, spy traps, camnet, backpack, gas mask, and a useful replacement for flares. In CT you can choose to take the uzi/shotgun to circumvent the need for the tazer and thus take other gadgets, but then you sacrifice your long-distance killing potential entirely. Even still, the ability to 1-shot kill a spy at extremely close range is useful no matter what gun you have.

-Your idea allows for less choice because the rifle is a POS without a scope. Again, go ahead and play CT with the rifle and never use snipe. The tazer can be compensated for by the bullcharge, so the scope would effectively become a "must have" gadget. You even concede that "the scope is awesome on the PC." Well, this game is going to be on PC! Your whole "take the tazer for close range, take the scope for long range" mechanic doesn't work because the bullcharge is going to be in the game, so the mercs automatically have a close-range ability. The tazer just allows them to get one that's better. The rifle's scope is the inherent long-range ability (that can be compensated for by frags if you take uzi/shotgun), and you want to take that away.

-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.

[Gawain]

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...

[InvisibleMan999]

that's the crucial point. i think it's possible to find a balanced rof, and you don't.

Yeah, I think this is the problem.

It's sort of odd how Spekkio thinks that for whatever reason, it's impossible to get a gun that works well at medium range and has sniping capabilities (with a gadget), yet he's been using the rifle for all these years and not getting run over by aggro spies.