FraggerMike
G.R.A.V.E
340
   |
Posted - 2016.05.10 16:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
Operative 1174 Uuali wrote:I like locking players into a role based on time played, i.e. proficiency. See, part of the problem is that players can just jump around in roles as a match plays out. This allows for the protostomps. A battle shouldn't end up with everything being immediately countered the minute someone brings something like a tank onto the field.
Battles will be better, more exciting when players plan ahead, play dedicated roles and are either limited by the roles they can field in one match or limited by how long and what roles they've bothered to actually focus on.
As a vehicle user you should want that. You ahould want the guy popping AV at you to have actually wanted to focus on that role rather than just passively train the AV skills just so he can pull it out to immediately counter your tank then swap back to regular ol' run and gun boring shooty shoot now that the thing they hate is off the map.
No, infantry should have to deal with my skilled up tank driver with skilled up AV both dedicated to their roles AND hopefully, limited to that role in that match if that is the role they are really wanting to play.
A better method for non AVers to have spur of the moment counters would be to have power ups, weapon caches littered around the map or limited AV at depots to have basic counters to vehicles.
Beyond that, do what I suggested before on the forums and have two role slots per match. You can then use one of those two pre-chosen fits. Therefore, planning and strategizing a team makeup beforehand would make the difference.
Having a team that fields certain elements but not others, i.e. weaknesses makes for a more interesting battle. Not every army has everything. An army is only as strong as what it brings.
That would turn the sandbox into quicksand.
"Open world is a term for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in regards to how or when to approach objectives, as opposed to other computer games that have a more linear structure to its gameplay. Open world and free-roaming suggest the absence of artificial barriers, in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity. Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in MMORPG or in other games adhering to the "open world concept". Their main appeal is they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behavior in the direction of their choosing. In these cases, there is often no concrete goal or end to the game. There are limitations to this autonomy through the rules of the simulation and its limitations. But the direction of gameplay may or may not rely ultimately upon the decision of the player, as in some cases this can be completely controllable by the player, the type depends on the requirements and availabilities of the game."
CEO of G.R.A.V.E
|