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

[tigaer]

By the way, what do devs think about an OCP? It's really hard to continue the thread without much of an opinion from the creators...

I used to talk about it awhile ago. I love the idea.

[DreadStunLock]

Well that 1 developer that does like the idea, but when you talked about it what did you get as answer? Can we expect another addition the spies inventory for weapons? Or is it just going to be a tazer and presumably a hacking glove?

[AgentX_003]

Well that 1 developer that does like the idea, but when you talked about it what did you get as answer? Can we expect another addition the spies inventory for weapons? Or is it just going to be a tazer and presumably a hacking glove?

whoa whoa whoa jabroni before you open up that can of worms , I suggest you look up the topic
remote hacking.

[DreadStunLock]

[frvge edit: no, he can stay]

[NeoSuperior]

35 of 136 Posts in this thread have been done by DreadStunLock.

It is enought to fill 2,33 of the 10 pages in this thread.

[DreadStunLock]

Let's make it 36, and lock this thread  ;)

[tigaer]

Let's make it 36, and lock this thread  ;)

Uhh... no? Who cares if you posted a lot?

[DreadStunLock]

Meister seems to, oh well as long as devs don't care, I don't care.

[AgentX_003]

Meister seems to, oh well as long as devs don't care, I don't care.

real independent thinking there ....   ???

[scope2005]

Back when we were porting the UMP maps from SCPT to SCCT I had a play with the "ID Cards" mode that Ubi removed at the last minute from SCPT. They removed this as an option from all maps just before release, but did not remove the mode itself... so you could make a map and enable it.

In this mode Spies fired live rounds rather than sticky shockers.

I was a bit psyched about it when I first tried it and thought it may well be an awesome idea...

I was very wrong, and I understood why ubi removed it.

Playing merc was no fun at all.. However the proposed accuracy impairment was not there so headshots by an invisible spy were happening all the time.

Even with the poor accuracy and short range, I feel as though this would tip the balance too much in favour of the spies in "story mode". If it was ever to be tested out, it would only be welcome in deathmatch IMO.

[Farley4Fan]

That's pretty interesting scope.  Never heard of anything like that.

I also feel like it could be a DM thing only, since spies in CT are handicapped in DM.  PS is a different story though.  (Not saying it would work in story, I'm saying DM in PS might be more balanced)

[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.

[DreadStunLock]

That depends how much you lose and gain, if you lose too much, it's never going to be used, if you lose too little it will not matter :/ Same goes for the objectives :S And finding that perfect balance is ridicilous ><

[Spekkio]

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.

[DreadStunLock]

I remember I disagreed once with you, but now that you made a whole novel about it I see your point. And I definitely agree with it.

Also will you still be able to really get a "Draw" in PS? Would be nice if Devs could tell us more on the fact that, is the Win and Lose is going to be shown by:

a) For a team to win they need to win both Mercenary and Spy rounds.

b) If a team got more objectives as spy than the other team shouldn't they get somekind of a "Win" condition, or will it be "Doesn't matter how many objectives you got, win is a win, and a lose is a lose(The most boring way)"

c) Winning a spy round give you a better reward? Or they are both equal?