Anyone else think the cost of items in the loadout menu should be based more on gameplay balance than real life cost? By doing that you could balance up the game a lot while also adding some more ingame realism.
Loadout costs..... anyone think......
- Thread starter LordKhaine
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Anyone else think the cost of items in the loadout menu should be based more on gameplay balance than real life cost? By doing that you could balance up the game a lot while also adding some more ingame realism
Sorry. I'don't know what people think about that but I'm 100% for RAW realism...
I would never like to see something added or modified for the gameplay over the realism. I'm not open minded at all about such stuff
I'm an infiltration extremist and realism without any compromise partisan
Sorry. I'don't know what people think about that but I'm 100% for RAW realism...
I would never like to see something added or modified for the gameplay over the realism. I'm not open minded at all about such stuff
I'm an infiltration extremist and realism without any compromise partisan
I say keep it the way it is. If the team starts to arbitrarily adjust the costs of the items in INF to compensate for other factors, no one will ever be happy with the outcome. At least right now if someone complains about the cost of an item, the team can argue that it's accurate to reality.
For game balance, there are other factors such as bulk, and available attachments.
For game balance, there are other factors such as bulk, and available attachments.
Total realism will never be reached, and wouldnt be fun to reach anyway. By changing the costs in the loadout menu you will solve a lot of the problems people are complaining about now, such as everyone always haveing all the attachments on weapons, and no-one ever picking the PSG over the Robar
I think inf has the perfect amount of realism EXCEPT the loadouts themselves. People shouldn't be able to carry the robar, an m16 with nade launcher, and grenades, and a pistol. First of all that just shows how gay they are and that they cant get one shot kills worth a damn. Second, its next to impossible to carry all that without needing extra oxygen. And third, youd clank around like a knight when you run and stick out like a sore thumb when your trying to hide. Nothing like a barrel of an m16 to give your position away .
I want to see the amount of cash available to you to be diminished so you cant have more than one primary weapon. That will seperate the real snipers from the 12 year olds.
. I want to see the amount of cash available to you to be diminished so you cant have more than one primary weapon. That will seperate the real snipers from the 12 year olds.
Actually, in the next release bulk is supposed to be better implemented so you can still carry all that you want, but you will be moving slower than hell with all that extra gear, so the money factor shouldnt need to be messed around with.
The current bul;k system is way too rough. IMO bulk and weight should be seperated by a system like the x-com games and Jagged Alliance. There is size and weight. You can fit some weapons in some places and the time it takes to switch depends on where they are carried.
I'm starting to think that the best way to fix this would be - UGH! - equipment slots. You have weapons slots for a primary(rifle/smg) and secondary(pistol, M203, HK69) weapon, and then you're free to load up on ammo grenades, etc. I figure this would do a couple of things. First and foremost, it would kill the Rambo. Second, I think it would tone down the rampant use of grenades a bit.
Amazingly enough...
... I tend to agree with The_Fur on this one:
Some slots, you can-fit-weapons here and here sort of thing, with swtiching times based on equipped location being important. I had the evil thought of a grenade bandolier for those launcher-dudes rapid reload, and that being an occasionally target to turn them into 4th-of-July exhibitions. Is that realistic? No idea, but it sure sounds fun.
I would allow a second rifle spot, slung over shoulder like. However, I would also like for that to be modeled and carry an extra bulk penalty for the awkwardness of that set-up for some movement modes, most notable prone movement and sprinting. As a general rule, I say give people more than enough rope to hang themselves... as the bulk system improves, I suspect there will be many more folks dangling from the "gallows of bad ideas".
Of course, that's easy enough for me to say, I spend most of my time with a scoped sig, m9, 2 grenades and a knife.
Btw, I've retained and enjoy the PSG1-Sniper loadout that is one of presets. Works well enough for me.
... I tend to agree with The_Fur on this one:
Some slots, you can-fit-weapons here and here sort of thing, with swtiching times based on equipped location being important. I had the evil thought of a grenade bandolier for those launcher-dudes rapid reload, and that being an occasionally target to turn them into 4th-of-July exhibitions.
Is that realistic? No idea, but it sure sounds fun. I would allow a second rifle spot, slung over shoulder like. However, I would also like for that to be modeled and carry an extra bulk penalty for the awkwardness of that set-up for some movement modes, most notable prone movement and sprinting. As a general rule, I say give people more than enough rope to hang themselves... as the bulk system improves, I suspect there will be many more folks dangling from the "gallows of bad ideas".
Of course, that's easy enough for me to say, I spend most of my time with a scoped sig, m9, 2 grenades and a knife.
Btw, I've retained and enjoy the PSG1-Sniper loadout that is one of presets. Works well enough for me.
i think the slots if there implemented should be in the loadout window and not a thing like strike force where ya do it before the game starts
i agree you should be able to have an extra rifle but w/bulk penalty dont matter to me my standard loadout is shotgun w/flashlight,max shells,desert eagle,max clips,and 5 nades
(having any less than 4 nades is unrealistic since real military ppl on there btus have 4 nade holder things)
and yeah it should take a while to change from one rifle to the next but changing to a pistol or nade is lightning quick
the only time i would use the extra rifle slot would be for a nade launcher but you could probally fit a nade launcher in the backpack it dont look very long
i agree you should be able to have an extra rifle but w/bulk penalty dont matter to me my standard loadout is shotgun w/flashlight,max shells,desert eagle,max clips,and 5 nades
(having any less than 4 nades is unrealistic since real military ppl on there btus have 4 nade holder things)
and yeah it should take a while to change from one rifle to the next but changing to a pistol or nade is lightning quick
the only time i would use the extra rifle slot would be for a nade launcher but you could probally fit a nade launcher in the backpack it dont look very long
I disagree in that cost shouldn't be exactly real world prices. Why? What kind of price tag would the G11 get when it enters the mod? At some point, the INF team will have to tweak costs..
I think changing cost is a better way than adding weapon slots. Weapon slots would suck.
As for adding a 2 values, weight and bulk, I agree thats a good idea. When I saw the roadmap I thought the bulk system would use a seperate weight and bulk value anyway.
As for adding a 2 values, weight and bulk, I agree thats a good idea. When I saw the roadmap I thought the bulk system would use a seperate weight and bulk value anyway.
How about this.
The main objection seems to be to carrying multiple longarms at the same time, as this brings up questions like 'where is that slung?'.
Tag all the longarms somehow as 'bulky', along with any other weapon that fits the description such as Anti-armour weapons and support weapons.
The first such weapon in your loadout uses its normal bulk, the second uses 150% (as an example) of it's bulk to show the difficulty of having two such weapons slung and carried. The third would use 200% of it's bulk maybe. This modifier should be applied after attachments, so an M16 with M203 would have 150% of the bulk that both normally have.
This wouldn't penalise people that want to carry a small backup SMG with their sniper rifle, but would seriously discourage the use of multiple rifles and, when implemented, SAWs.
Wolfen.
The main objection seems to be to carrying multiple longarms at the same time, as this brings up questions like 'where is that slung?'.
Tag all the longarms somehow as 'bulky', along with any other weapon that fits the description such as Anti-armour weapons and support weapons.
The first such weapon in your loadout uses its normal bulk, the second uses 150% (as an example) of it's bulk to show the difficulty of having two such weapons slung and carried. The third would use 200% of it's bulk maybe. This modifier should be applied after attachments, so an M16 with M203 would have 150% of the bulk that both normally have.
This wouldn't penalise people that want to carry a small backup SMG with their sniper rifle, but would seriously discourage the use of multiple rifles and, when implemented, SAWs.
Wolfen.
It depends on what kind of realism you are trying to achieve. I mean, if it's "Military" realism, then cost should not be used. People working in the military don't pay money to use their weapons. The weapon load out depends on the mission and weight.
If you are saying Infiltration is more "Mercenary" then cost can be a player, as well as weight.
My advice, if you want true Military realism stick with bulk weight. Get rid of the cost factor...it's very unrealistic. Especially since missions are not a factor in Inf right now.
Yet, again...if the Infiltration team is trying to emulate Mercenaries...cost needs to stay. But still, there should be stricter bulk limitations.
If you are saying Infiltration is more "Mercenary" then cost can be a player, as well as weight.
My advice, if you want true Military realism stick with bulk weight. Get rid of the cost factor...it's very unrealistic. Especially since missions are not a factor in Inf right now.
Yet, again...if the Infiltration team is trying to emulate Mercenaries...cost needs to stay. But still, there should be stricter bulk limitations.
Put me down for:
1) No slots!
2) Use real prices!
Because there are no "slots" IRL: you can make webgear in your basement on your mom's sewing machine. Also, slots force you into the programmer's preconceived notion of how things should be. In RS/R6, I can't carry 1 grenade and 2 extra clips; i have to have either the full load of grenades or the full load of clips. Plus, guns like the MP5-K and FN-P90 skirt the issue of shoulderarm/handgun. Both are about the same size as the Desert Eagle, yet have shoulder stocks. I'd rather have a spare MP5-K than a DE, but RS/R6 won't allow that.
I love JA2's inventory system, because the player experiences heavy but compact loadouts, and light but bulky loadouts. But it's a strategy/RPG game, and the inventory system helps prevent the "Adventurer of the Bottomless Pockets" syndrome.
Keep the prices real. The other half of weapons selection is the prices. IRL, M4's are cheaper than MP5's. The PSG-1 is rarely used because of it's cost. However, I have a suggestion: divide the maximum loadout cost ($10k?) by the cost of the player's loadout (at the time of the kill - no pickup tricks) use that as a score multiplier for that kill.
ex: player has $5k of weapons. 10/5 = 2. Each kill worth 2x. Player has M9+clips: 10/1 = 10 (or whatever) Each kill worth 10x. This might encourage the players to keep the loadouts light, and weapons real. Reward kills with cheaper guns.
1) No slots!
2) Use real prices!
Because there are no "slots" IRL: you can make webgear in your basement on your mom's sewing machine. Also, slots force you into the programmer's preconceived notion of how things should be. In RS/R6, I can't carry 1 grenade and 2 extra clips; i have to have either the full load of grenades or the full load of clips. Plus, guns like the MP5-K and FN-P90 skirt the issue of shoulderarm/handgun. Both are about the same size as the Desert Eagle, yet have shoulder stocks. I'd rather have a spare MP5-K than a DE, but RS/R6 won't allow that.
I love JA2's inventory system, because the player experiences heavy but compact loadouts, and light but bulky loadouts. But it's a strategy/RPG game, and the inventory system helps prevent the "Adventurer of the Bottomless Pockets" syndrome.
Keep the prices real. The other half of weapons selection is the prices. IRL, M4's are cheaper than MP5's. The PSG-1 is rarely used because of it's cost. However, I have a suggestion: divide the maximum loadout cost ($10k?) by the cost of the player's loadout (at the time of the kill - no pickup tricks) use that as a score multiplier for that kill.
ex: player has $5k of weapons. 10/5 = 2. Each kill worth 2x. Player has M9+clips: 10/1 = 10 (or whatever) Each kill worth 10x. This might encourage the players to keep the loadouts light, and weapons real. Reward kills with cheaper guns.
I cant see how you expect to keep totally realistic prices. If you total realism freaks have you're way NO-ONE but the 20 or so total realism freaks will play this game.
Realism is great, but I cant see how game balancing loadout costs will make INF less realistic. It will make the game more realistic ingame.
Realism is great, but I cant see how game balancing loadout costs will make INF less realistic. It will make the game more realistic ingame.