At the moment, most weapons in the game only fill one role. That might be easier when it comes to balancing issues, but it also means you're less versatile and totally shafted when you encounter a situation this gun isn't suited for... and it all ends in frustration. What I suggest is the following: Give the guns in the game a different firemode to prevent weapons from being a one-trick pony. The downsides to these seperate firemodes are that they will take a time to activate because ammunition has to be unloaded, attachments have to be affixed to the gun or the mode is being changed. Examples: Scout Shotgun Remove the Scout Rifle on both sides and replace it with a shotgun with two fire modes: Fire Mode 1 Close Quarters: The scout flicks up his iron sight, the gun shoots standard issue shotgun pellets which are most effective on short range. Fire Mode 2 Medium Range: The Scout flicks the iron sights down and puts an ACOG scope onto his shotgun, then proceeds to unload every shell and starts to load shotgun slugs into it. This shell doesnt carry pellets, but a single projectile that stays accurate over medium range and can be used to damage targets from afar. Rocket Launcher/Mortar Reduces both weapons to one (which already is the case, but they're still handled as different weapons). Changing the firemode makes the Grenadier convert the RPG into the Mortar and back. Assault Rifles Changing the firemode switches to an underslung launcher on the rifle, which fires the rifleman's grenades (he wouldn't be able to throw them by hand then). BE Carbine Changing the firemode makes him change the barrel and fix a small scope or Holosight to the rifle, which increases accuracy, but dramatically decreases the damage and the rate of fire to slow, single shots. He only carries a small ammout of this ammunition with him... or just have it do what the NF one does. NF Carbine Using the firemode, the rifleman exchanges the rifle's barrel. This could either allow him to use BE Ammo he finds in the field for a slight accuracy/damage penalty... or just have it do what the BE one does. Heavy Machine Guns While prone, changing the firemode makes the rifleman use the rifle's tripod, giving him higher accuracy but a lower rate of fire. SMG1 & SMG2 Simply changes from automatic to semi-automatic for more accuracy, but only single fire. Grenades Changing fuse time, maybe. Shotgun Pistol The second firemode loads signal shots into the pistol, which have can be used to give signals over large distances, but don't do significant damage. ETC ETC You get the idea. :D Pro: Versatility, the time the firemode changing animation takes could help balancing it; Contra: Maybe too versatile, Balancing, Coding;
more cons: weapons are supposed to limit you, team work is what saves you more modles more animations
I'd be willing to do it if you gave me the source files. Problem is I think they were modeled and rigged in 3DS Max.
Teamwork. Making the player weak since 199X. @Sherbie: I would like different firing modes, but not the complex or weirdly balanced ones like the underslung GL or barrel changing. Infantry-heavy games like Insurgency and Red Orchestra do fire modes right.
Firemodes would be nice for some guns, make them single shot and boost the accuracy, but that might cause more balance issues. You'd have to make it so that it would work during a trench war, but so that if the enemy closed in, it would suck, basically giving the player two guns with two roles but you can only use one at a time, so having players filling both would still be important.
That's nonsensical. Weak compared to what? It's a cooperative verses game; the only way players can be weaker in one particular role is if they're stronger in another role. Players as a whole can't simply be "weak"; it's not like the devs can accidently nerf players as a whole so much that the trees can seize the advantage to leap up and eat us. Players are balanced against each other. There isn't any other measure of weakness or strength. Empires does not have mobs of orcs wandering its landscape waiting to kill us if our player characters get over-nerfed. If you mean "unable to do everything on their own", well, yeah, that's the idea... but groups of players working together are supposed to be stronger than individual players. You're not seriously suggesting it should be balanced the other way around, are you?
I think he is suggesting that group power should come from superior numbers, or at least it should not be at the expense of individual power. A player feeling ineffective and weak is a problem, it detracts from the fun, take counter strike, you individually feel powerful, you can't take on a whole team but you stand a fighting chance against any other player, now CS has a lot of problems with it but it does have that right, and it's a good feeling, if a player comes up against another player who has a better weapon (in the situation) and subsequently a huge advantage, he is going to feel annoyed. You need to either remove the need for players to expose themselves to that sort of danger, or you have to make people universally effective and have strength in numbers come from numbers, not from other people doing things you can't. Left4dead gets this absolutely perfect, you stay with players because they give you enough firepower to beat the horde and you die by smoker or hunter if you don't, but even then it's not so overpowered that a sufficiently skilled player can't tackle a boss infected alone, it's just a lot harder and you will get worn down.
Nuts to that. Empires isn't Left4Dead or Counterstrike. The systems in those games only works because there's no respawning, so nobody wants to take any risks if they can possibly avoid it. You wander away from the group in one of those, you die and sit out the rest of the round, giving you lots of time to meditate on your failure. In Empires, players can run off and do whatever stupid thing they want with the knowledge they'll respawn. If they think they have a chance of doing everything on their own, they'll go for it, because the risk isn't cripplingly high like in Left4Dead or Counterstrike. When players don't care so much about dying (and therefore don't care so much about having someone to watch their back), the only way to encourage teamwork is to ensure that players have situations that they simply cannot handle without support, period; this is why team games with distinct, specialized classes have been so successful and, for the most part (absent ones that use "hard death penalties" to enforce teamwork instead) other ones have tended to die out. If you want players to really depend on teamwork as a matter of basic gameplay, it isn't enough to use wishy-washy things like giving you slightly more firepower when you have more people with you. Those don't work at all, because most casual players don't really give a damn about a little advantage like that. You need something hard, something that hits players that try to ignore teamwork like a brick to the face. Counterstrike and Left4Dead make you sit out the rest of the round. Empires doesn't, so we have to rely on the only other method that's ever been shown to work; and that's distinct classes with clearly-defined roles.
Make it so you can only switch the gun (you need parts from the crate) if you are close to an ammo crate or else people would be to good in any situation.
Has it not occured to you that if your players keep wanting to do something, that what you're letting them do might not be fun? Teamplay for the same of teamplay is stupid, if people aren't enjoying it there's no point forcing it.
Honestly I don't think these changes should eliminate the need for teamwork but allow different combinations. An engineer still cant take down tanks with a single shot SMG or rape at long range because frankly, the SMG does really little damage. The rifleman's carbine still shoudln't be able to replace the scouts med range shotgun, because it doesn't carry a lot of ammo or whatever reason, but giving him a good scope at least for a few shots would be a good thing, because the iron sights in the game are poo. I know your pain, all I have is XSI. Look at Dystopia... the tesla gun for example, it's essentially short range, but the tesla ball makes it optionally medium range. They just balance it to not be overpowered and it makes the game feel so much more interesting. I was just suggesting the barrel change to allow for a longer change animation, that way it could be balanced... if you couldn't just switch back and forth during a firefight. As for the GL, it could just replace his nades, take the same time as changing your weapon to the usual grenade and goes just as far... and it makes the rifleman feel more awesome. *sigh* ;D Not really, the SMG doesn't deal a lot of damage. If it fires slow enough you would deal as much or a little more damage than spraying at your opponent, but are able to conserve ammo... Indeed, single fire weapons suck in close quarters, we all know that. And if you have a short time it takes to change the firemode, it can be fair. It's mostly about feeling more powerful. So wait, what is the current balance? Rifleman -> Kills all at any range, sometimes tanks. Grenadier -> Kills tanks and occasionally troops Scout -> Barely kills anything, mostly on long range Engineer -> Builds walls, gets shafted and waits until he gets Lvl3's It's not about doing everything on your own. But about being able to do SOMETHING in a few situations instead of just helplessly dieing. Honestly, most maps have large, open spaces. Giving the player to fight back over bigger distances would take the annoyance out of scoped rifles because... guess what! You can fight back! That's the whole beef about zoomable weapons, they sit somewhere on a hill and you can't fucking see them. That is what most people told me when I tried to introduce them to this mod... they felt like total jackasses in most situations because the game was like... "Sorry you had bad luck, a rifleman came along and now you're shafted! Better luck next spawn!" This is mostly about giving the player a feeling of control over his gun. Being able to pull off more with them makes them feel more professional... Take tactical games, most of the time you screw around on something on your gun, put on silencers, adjust scopes or some shit and it just adds to the whole athmosphere and makes you feel like your weapon is actually powerful. I really liked that bout L4D, it really encourges teamplay. Maybe Empires needs zombies. :D If players were more dependant on revives, that'd be a start, but that's another story... >_> As I've said, different firemodes should not eliminate the need for different teammembers... Every one of them is an expert in a certain field That's a great idea and would make the engineer an even more valuable companion for every class.
Actually I mostly play as an engineer and that isn't the case. If it is; you're doing it wrong. Admittedly they can't do all that much on their own infantry vs infantry, but get a squad with two engineers and a mix of any other class (or even 5 engineers making up a squad all on their own) with the right skills and you can dominate. Anyway, extra firemodes for weapons would be interesting; the main problem would just be to balence the weapons right, and to make sure that it doesn't take so long to change firemodes that weapons wouldn't be just plain worse than they are now.
I just don't see this. Very few people are seriously complaining about the 2.2.2 weapons, or the capabilities. Riflemen and engineers are fairly balanced... scouts have too few capabilities and grenadiers a few too many, but you never see anyone complain about the fact that the rifleman can't handle turrets on their own, or the fact that engineers generally can't kill tanks unless they have a chance to set up turrets in advance. Players like that kind of class-distinction. They don't know they do, but as long as they have something to do, nobody minds not being able to do everything. It's just that when a topic like this comes up, or if you suggest fixing the mortar so it isn't a do-everything-weapon, everyone is like "ZOMG I WANTZ MORE POWAHZ!", because most players are damn stupid when it comes to superpowers and would demand blimps, jetpacks, sniper rifles, insta-structure-killing weapons, mortars for every class and portable nuke launchers for scouts if they thought they could actually get them. That is because they look at the impact a particular suggestion would have on them personally and not what it would have on the metagame. Seriously. How often do you see people complain that the rifleman can't kill structures? I've never seen it mentioned once. That kind of limitation is a good thing; it makes classes and gameplay more interesting in the long run. I mean, it's not like extra firemodes would ruin the game (unless you gave the rifleman a "kill structures" firemode, or the scout a "kill tanks" firemode, or something silly like that.) But I just don't see the point. Weapons have clearly-defined roles for a reason. If you don't like that, then why not just suggest that every weapon be reverted to a general-purpose do-anything tool?
This thread isn't about changing class roles. It's about about giving them more options, an engineer will still stay an engineer and certainly can't kill tanks easily because he has an SMG that has a second firemode. I'm not suggesting uranium ammunition or laser rifles, I'm just stating that giving the player more control over his weapon would make it feel more powerful. They don't actually have to be very good. It sure is a little on the cosmetic/polishing side, but it'd still be awesome to see.
when you put it that way... i think i am starting to come around. shelve this till the "infantry patch" comes out. i believe they (the devs) are on the "commander patch" right now.
Hmmm, commander patch. :D Btw, I just found this: Try this mod for an example on how to make weapons feel mighty using sights and fire modes even though they aren't especially strong... http://www.smod-tactical.com/
