Discussion point: Infantry Weapon Overhaul

But empires has more in common with halo in this regard. TF2, without all the later added bs, was all shotguns or explosions.

 

I'm not comparing, I'm contrasting.

Empires & Halo are nearly polar opposite FPSs and that's literally the crux of the argument. Halo supports fun ohk weapons because it's not Empires. Equivalently, Empires doesn't support fun ohk weapons because it's not Halo.

 

I cant really agree with you spartacus. Sniper headshots, direct mortars, rockets melee upg, shotty up close and faggy p2 any range hs all happily instagib. You could say that rocks and p2 are not exactly up there with the rest, but even then I can't agree with you, as we have nukes and running people over as well.
Also, probably the worst offender, mines.
There sure is no deficit of instakills in empires.

 

That's kind of the problem.

 

Are we seriously comparing empires to halo when the game plays like a fucked up version of counter strike?

 

He just stated that he was contrasting, not comparing. The point is that we shouldn't do things that happen in a game like Halo specifically because Empires doesn't play like Halo.

 

Then I dont really get what you are saying here.

I understand that you think the plethora of ohk in empires is bad, which I agree with, but the way you say that... just ugh. How exactly is it contrasting when both games have alot of ohk weapons? You could mean that console shooters as halo embrace that, but just because we have alot of that as well, I cant say that empires is any diffrent in that regard.

 

I don' tthink we need to increase the time to kill much, if at all.

The maps are already gigantic and combat occurs at pretty huge ranges, remember 2.2? That was the patch where they first added falloff, and you'd be doing 10-15 damage to targets past 30m.

The result was infantry combat ground to a *complete* halt. Nobody made progress, you know that lategame trenchwar stalemate that happens when both teams are even and nobody has HE/Nuke/Arty yet? It happened every game from the start, and it was horrible, don't get me wrong the trench gameplay is fun, but EVERY round was like watching empires in slow motion, players could take so many bullets that taking down any individual enemy required either focus fire or perfect accuracy.

It was an extreme scenario, but I don't really think that gameplay was very fun and I don't think we should head in that direction, infantry combat in empires is *intense*, entire 5v5 squad fights can be decided in under 3 seconds, which is a great contrast to other parts of the game, like vehicle combat and base destruction taking a really long time.

And honestly, mortars are one of the most fun mechanics in empires, if we change weapons too much we'll have to nerf the mortar, and I don't think any one wants that, if anything the mortar is our best weapon so I feel we should be balancing our weapons to make it fair.

 

I don't really get it. For starters the fact that you spawn with the instagib weapons in Empires is actually better than Halo, since once you get those weapons in Halo you can be pretty unstoppable. Unlike in Empires where I can respawn as a rifleman if I'm getting pwned and be on equal footing.

Regardless. I think the feedback is now down to "instagib bad", "melee upgrade bad". In fact, the amount of meleeing I've seen in barracks has skyrocketed to like...20 or so when a team is on the back foot. I really want to ask if Melee upgrade is even a worthwhile thing. It'd be much more fun to get flasche or firewarrior to mock up some swords or something instead and just have a proper melee slot.

Or add it as a selectable for sidearm.

Going back on-topic, what do you really want as feedback Trickster? I mean depending on how many variables you take into account NF could never be balanced against BE. Even if the weapons are the same, super basic things like NF's colour scheme, or the model behaviours on weapons mean that combat plays out quite differently.

For instance, a bren troop can set up in the woods and gun down a few people quite a bit easier than a NF troop, simply because the NF troop usually gets a mortar in his face because red in dark/green shows up like a...well, a target diamond tbh, lol.

Similarly, people were saying the Bren SMG's feel more controlled and powerful than NF's, basically because the lack of model kickback.

What things do you really want to get feedback on?

 

Candles, I think I have some communication issues.

I admit the logic is based on pure correlation, so it's fuzzy to begin with, but I can't even properly explain it.

 

Were you saying you have to balance weapons with skill and gimmicky mechanics because you can't just upgrade or pick up a great weapon when you've earned enough points? Which means that skilled players can own with the default weapons and they're not wielding say a chaingun that you can go "dammit! I need one of those", they're just...owning you with a default rifle? And can do that at will, if need be.

:confused:

 

Correction, we had falloff back in 2.0-2.12 era, it was just capped at like maximum 15% damage reduction. Meaning with the old accuracy, a skilled riflemen could mow down people that were really far away easily.

Also, guys, please stop with the funky logic and grammar hijinks. Clear and simple statements. Arguining over semantics is kind of a time waster here.

 

I couldn't help myself, I am so sorry...

Wipped up in about 10 minutes on a crappy work computer...

 

Dont change the fucking speed in which people die, its perfect now.
Everyone who has played close range tight nit squad rev stuff knows how fun end exciting it is to have a constant stream of grens and rifles try to kill your engi squad but persistently surviving, the pace is fast enough but not too fast.

DONT SCREW WITH ENGINEER FUN ASSHOLES

 

It's okay, that's 1v5 after all.

 

Im sorry you expect to win 1v5 in a team game, maybe go play some solo rpg tower defense mmo fps