Laser Grenade - Too Strong?

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by FDA_Approved

If you just take out the center you can still put two lazers on opposite sides of the flag.

True, but that is still way less effective than a single current laser grenade being directly on the flag (and far more interactive).

[Crazycarl]

Maybe the flag is the problem.

[squeek.]

[Bully]

I still fail to understand why the concept, regardless of how it is implemented is perceived as a problem. I loved spam in what ever form it came in, it's a battle field god damn it. What next a MIRV that explodes flowers ?

[Raynian]

I dunno. Take spam in TFC, like the spam on dustbowl. Holy shit, dustbowl was great. Both offense and defense was fun, but especially on offense, you knew that once you broke through the spam, you'd get to actually run the flag to the cap. In CTF modes, especially in FF, even if you stop the spam for a second, you're just greeted with...more spam.

Spam spam spam.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by Bully

I still fail to understand why the concept, regardless of how it is implemented is perceived as a problem. I loved spam in what ever form it came in, it's a battle field god damn it. What next a MIRV that explodes flowers ?

Spam itself is arguable in it's badness (although I would argue that it is indeed bad), but the real problem comes when the best use of something is spam, because it increases the volume/likelihood of spam (even from good players) to a level that creates a legitimate negative impact on the game as a whole. In other words, spam isn't as much of a problem if it's not as effective as skilled use of a grenade; but, when spam is more effective than skilled use, it becomes an issue worth looking into.

As for why spam is bad, here's a list from the dev forums:

• Spam promotes a feeling of futility - there was nothing you could have done differently - no feedback to the player on how to improve.
• Spam goes against interactive combat.
• Spam punishes the receiving player excessively, whilst giving little satisfaction to the spammer (as he knows the kill was just lucky and not skillful).
• Spam does not give a high perceived enemy skill level.
• Spam reduces depth, as there is no longer any choice as to when to prime your grenades, you simply just throw them all.
• Spam reduces double blind guessing or bluffing. "When you are guessing, instead of making informed decisions, it becomes pointless and lacks depth."
• Spam promotes success through luck.

Whether or not each of those things is actually bad is subjective, but I think the concepts are supported fairly well in the field of game design.

[Bully]

I would like to think that everyone who plays this game realises and takes it as gospel that there is going to be an element of luck. Trying to remove this luck element for me has resulted in a very bland and less exciting playing experience.

What is the difference in terms of luck or skill? if you turn a corner and run into an exploding spamnailmirvlaser or you come face to face with an opponent. Especially if any %age of spam is going to kill you then yes it is bad, very unlucky. The individual grenade design here has little relevance to me. Just the level of damage to get past it or not.

If your up against an opponent then it's argued that it's skill v's skill but if that opponent then gets conced by a scout or been landed with a tranq in the back from a hiding spy or frag grenaded by a solly then were back to skill v's luck. Is this teamwork or is it perceived as luck ?. The difference of how this interaction is taken by the player is dependent on whether you know it going to happen or not.

You make the decision to run into visible spam or not, that's your informed choice. Someone randomly landing on your head, killing you and you didn't even see it coming IMO is the same as bad spam.

The way i see it is to give out more grenades but make them all less effective.

[AfterShock]

Different people like different things.

Some players prefer to live in a world where they can blame every death on "being unlucky", and see every kill they make as "being skillful". This is part of the thinking that led to crits in TF2 (random shots will cause double damage). Players like this don't want to feel like they're being outclassed by some 13 year old who plays for 8 hours a day. They want to feel like you can still play and have fun, and that if they don't do so well then they don't want it forced down their throat. Plus the element of luck allows them to get back at those snotty 13 year olds no matter how "pro" they think they are.

Other players want a world where they can clearly see every mistake they make, and improve. If they are beaten by someone better than them, they can clearly see why, and they know they are outmatched. Conversely if they win, everyone knows it's because they are better, and it's not due to luck. Also, if they are beaten by a skillful move, they can clearly see what happened, and learn from it. These players get very frustrated when they lose to someone worse than them because of luck. They feel like they have been cheated by the system, they've done everything right and still lost.

In general my design philosophy leans towards the latter group, however I do want to solve the problems you suggest, but there are better ways to do it than pure luck.

You're right in that without variation in situation, the game becomes predictable and boring. A dynamic game is interesting, where there are new situations to overcome constantly, so you constantly have to re-evaluate the best tactics and decide what to do. I don't believe you need luck to solve this. I've been pushing for slow but steady flag progression, to increase the time it takes to capture flags, to increase the number of new positions defense must take up, and thus keep the game dynamic, rewarding those who are creative and utilise their environment depending on the situation. However, if the game moves so fast that you never know whats around the next corner, you can't plan strategically and end up just wandering around trying to deal with whatever you come across.

To produce variation in situation (without using luck), you simply need to make the optimal strategy highly dependent on the current situation. It shouldn't always be best to enter the base in a particular way, it should depend on who's defending it, who's recently died, where the sentry gun is, where your teammates are attacking, and so on.

I also believe that social interaction is a great element of FF and should be promoted where possible. I wrote an article on including psychology in multiplayer games here http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Micha...Games__Why.php, which outlines that social interaction through guessing what your opponent is thinking is a fun way to play games. Obviously spam and luck based mechanics reduce the ability for players to interact with each other in meaningful ways.

Someone randomly landing on your head, killing you and you didn't even see it coming IMO is the same as bad spam.

Indeed this was debated in the dev forums, as generally we are against random / lucky large spikes in damage, or one-shot abilities.

Originally Posted by Green Mushy

I know it is technically another 1 shotting mechanism, but its got to be so infrequent that it might be funny to see and not frustrating?

The general consensus was that the fun it provides to the player doing the headstomp outweighs the frustration of the player dying. It's actually extremely hard to do. I can see that someone playing predominantly defense would never really get the satisfaction of doing it themselves, however, so it would seem like a negative addition. Having to watch the skies for raining scouts probably isn't something we should enforce. I'd welcome further debate on the subject, but this isn't something that should stop us removing spam.

[moosh]

or how about we just bring back the nailz

[reaper18]

Originally Posted by moosh

or how about we just bring back the nailz

Counterintuitive, sir

[XPelargos]

Hey, I can get behind counter intuitiveness.

I don't mind experimenting with the game. But as it stands, empirical evidence seems to say that this experiment failed.

That's not a bad thing, just chalk another lesson learned from the scientific method, and move on. <3

[reaper18]

Originally Posted by XPelargos

Hey, I can get behind counter intuitiveness.

I don't mind experimenting with the game. But as it stands, empirical evidence seems to say that this experiment failed.

That's not a bad thing, just chalk another lesson learned from the scientific method, and move on. <3

Perhaps..
Maybe just remove the final explosion and increase the amount of nails. When the nade is done, it could just drop to the floor.
This follows the K.I.S.S (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle and i like it lol

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by reaper18

Perhaps..
Maybe just remove the final explosion and increase the amount of nails. When the nade is done, it could just drop to the floor.
This follows the K.I.S.S (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle and i like it lol

How would that be any different from a laser grenade with very low damage (other than the fact that it'd be impossible to dodge)?

I'm not happy with the current laser grenade, and I did briefly consider returning to the nail grenade, but the nail grenade is truly bad. I can't see any real benefits to it besides familiarity.

[XPelargos]

hehe. K.I.S.S. How about this one?

Keep it Stupid? Simple!

But seriously, Aftershock makes some interesting points about gameplay and interaction. Rather than adding tweaks to an old system, let's break it all down and build it up!

I'd love to try really weird maps and new game mechanics. I think the concept of "Security" for a flag is a good start, but there could be switches that manipulate the map in all sorts of ways as opposed to deactivating some lasers.

Maybe the problem stems from the core principles we take for granted!

I think the most solid thing about FF is the movement. Don't change that.

What we should change is maps and objectives.
The hard part is creating an interesting space to move around and giving the characters compelling objectives.

Does it have to be a flag?
Are there other ways of giving out points?
Say what you want about TF2, the cart mechanic is a brilliant rethink in ways to get players to work together and have dynamic action all over the map.

Fortress Forever is removed enough from TFC that the diehard TFC players will not make the jump. Therefore, let's not be hankered down by ALL of its restrictions.

The removal of caltrops and spy grenades were a fine choice. Nobody really misses them, they were not compelling tools to use or fight against. So they're gone. No harm done.

What else can be changed? : - )

[XPelargos]

@squeek: Scout has one grenade.
Spy has one grenade.

The thing that makes me come back to soldier is not the secondary grenades (laser or otherwise). It's that RPG and that shootie-boom-botty!

I could care less if I have a secondary nade.

Just lose it. Nobody will stop playing soldier because of it. : D

[squeek.]

I think that would be an overreaction. The laser grenade is save-able. Just need to start actually doing the saving.

[Raynian]

Originally Posted by XPelargos

The removal of caltrops and spy grenades were a fine choice. Nobody really misses them, they were not compelling tools to use or fight against. So they're gone. No harm done.

The removal of caltrops
a fine choice
Nobody really misses them

You shut the fuck up. You shut the fuck up right now.

;_;

[Bully]

I'm with Ray on that one ^

[AfterShock]

Originally Posted by XPelargos

Say what you want about TF2, the cart mechanic is a brilliant rethink in ways to get players to work together and have dynamic action all over the map.

I've been trying to get payload into FF for years. Unfortunately I'm not a mapper.

[XPelargos]

Thread needs more flamewar. I'll start:

Caltrops weren't what made scout fun. It was the movement possibilities from concs.

Gas grenades weren't what made spy fun. It was disguises, feigning death (now cloak) and the knife.

Nail grenade (and laser grenade) weren't what made Soldier fun. It was the rocket launcher and all the associated fragging and jumping that it allows.

Sniper NEVER had a secondary grenade. Why is nobody lamenting the fact that he doesn't have one?

We should not seek to add more and more and more, but remove what isn't necessary.

Another question: Why is Pyro banned in pickups?