Jump to content

Ramirez77

Member
  • Content Count

    1,469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Ramirez77

  1. Some weird hybrid engine between IdTech 5 and whatever Sabre is doing. Ironic that new ideas aren't killing this game, but rather the poor state of it's basic functionality is. Never thought that of all things would be the death of an Id game. Hopefully they fix the game soon.
  2. @@QuietMan It'd help if you elaborated on what exactly you meant by "CoD-like gunplay". The only similarities I'm seeing here is that ground movement is a bit slow and the game is hitscan/automatic dominated.
  3. They're only somewhat redundant at closer ranges. At long range they have very clear differences in role and functionality. I think you could experiment with tying them to the same weapon. Scoping in with the Plasma Rifle would give you the sentinel beam but at a significant loss to damage output due to it's easier, more versatile nature. If they have the exact same damage then yes the Sentinel Beam is a straight upgrade. I wouldn't consider that good design either.
  4. Sigh. I feel like you knew what I meant. Yes, because of inclusion of weapons like the Rocket Launcher, there will always be a minimum of two tiers. I don't necessarily like it but this is true. I'm saying the game should strive to have as few unnecessary tiers as possible. I.e. the map shouldn't be littered with weapons that are literal, objective upgrades to other weapons, creating a game of whoever picked up the best version of the weapon wins. The Mauler to Shotgun relationship is like adding a second Plasma Pistol that also has the noob combo but slows down your weapon switch speed. Point being other weapons already have it and then more on top of that.
  5. I don't believe that weapon tiers should exist. The Mauler is intentionally designed to fit somewhere between the spawn weapon and the Shotgun. I don't consider this a valid sandbox position. The Shotgun itself isn't always treated as a neutral, highly-valuable power weapon either. On the Pit for example the Shotguns are basically no more neutral or vulnerable than the Maulers are. If I wanted to make it a sidegrade to the Shotgun I'd keep it's faster firing rate, give it much more range than it has now, and remove any potential for a one hit kill. Though this would still be fairly redundant and better suited to the Scattershot.
  6. Pointless weapon that needs a rework to actually be worth anything. Consider why I would want to double melee someone when I could just kill them in one shot from the regular shotgun, which is also just as good with followup melees anyways.
  7. Condescending or not I think he brings up some really good points in his last post. But yeah you guys are getting way too salty over this damn.
  8. Aggressive gameplay is more entertaining to watch in general. I think that's really 90% of it right there. There are definitely slow-paced, low encounter games that still maintain strategy and decision making. For example, Rainbow Six Siege. Matches will end with each person only having around one to five kills.
  9. But couldn't you then turn right around and say that the down team in slayer can still earn kills and thus still has incentive to play aggressively while the other team hides.
  10. To play devil's advocate here: In CTF my team has to move to secure the initial point. Once the game is 1-0 we can just camp and defend until time runs out. I don't see how that's any different from avoiding deaths in Slayer. "But power weapons", you can't conveniently throw that out for Slayer then include it as a factor in CTF. Though unlike CTF, kills actually matter in Slayer. In most objective modes you can be shit at the game and still contribute towards completion of the objective.
  11. If the president tells me to do something, and it's neither a law nor something I feel like doing, then I'm not going to do it. This is a constitutional democracy. Not a fascist dictatorship. The president doesn't rule me nor is he inherently entitled to my respect. I have every constitutional right to sit during the anthem. Which I probably would for multiple reasons that have nothing to do with BLM anyways. Nah actually I'd stand, but only for the sole purpose of not having to deal with everyone else's bullshit I'd receive for sitting. I imagine a lot of other people stand for the same reason. Also lmao at the fact this thread is still on this.
  12. -Nevermind- Further elaboration is needed. Does each objective carry it's own independent time limit, or do they have to complete all of those objectives within a specific match time limit?
  13. That expanded universe tho. Kill me now.
  14. I consider the time around the sixth console generation to be the golden age of mainstream gaming. People were still playing the best games of the previous generations, the current games being released were very good, and gaming hadn't yet gone entirely corporate and sapped of creativity. That's another highpoint of the franchise. The levels and accompanying music managed to make things immersive without relying on realism gimmicks.
  15. Used to play Timesplitters: Future Perfect all the time as a kid. Game was revolutionary at the time and actually still is in some ways. When's the last time you saw a game with a built in map editor that could be used to make multiplayer maps and singeplayer missions? Or a game that has over a hundred character models that can be unlocked through challenges and not paywalls or an RNG lootbox grind? I think the gameplay itself does a lot to prove that less can be more. People hate how Halo doesn't have sprint, imagine their reaction when they find out they can't even jump in Timesplitters. Yet it's one thing I actually liked about the game, it provides a unique dynamic to the level layouts and makes infection feel much more tense when you can't jump away to higher ground. I'm sad the franchise never got rebooted, though in a way I'm also kind of thankful it didn't. They probably would've missed the point and made it a mechanically generic military shooter with a gritty story and no content.
  16. I don't really like the idea of permanent buffs no matter how minimal. It's not the end of the world but it's just worse design in every way relative to having time limited but strong buffs. Both because the side objective is less appealing to contest in the moment, and because the enemy has that buff for the entire duration of the match with the other team having no way of securing the advantage for themselves. With power weapons you might get decimated one push, but there's always the next push to decimate them back. With this once the enemy captures the objective that's it, they're at an advantage forever. Even if there are multiple capture opportunities at best all you can do is equally match their buff after they gain the initial advantage, and at worst they get yet another permanent advantage on-top of the one they already have instead of an advantage that is limited by time or by another resource (ammo). I think I'd be fine with both teams being able to capture access to a map shortcut for a limited amount of time. Though I'm also concerned that it could be too strong if the map possesses a ton of these shortcuts and the entire team can disappear off the playspace altogether for extended amounts of time. It's something I'd need to see in practice, and possibly limited to only one person on the team depending on how strong it ends up being.** Nah, not really buying that last point. At it's absolute worse, it's an even trade, he gives up kills to make more kills later. Usually it will be a straight advantage. Otherwise there's no purpose in the system. **. I.e. the score is 49-47 and there's one minute on the clock. Your team secures the objective and the entire team hides somewhere that the enemy literally can't access for a minute, running down the clock to win the game. That would not be good. You can see how proper design of the shortcut system is crucial here.
  17. I do like the idea of optional side objectives that carry rewards for completing them. I mean in essence that's exactly what pickups are. I don't think I like those specific ideas though. -A buff that lasts the entire match might as well be giving your team the victory. -No automated map defenses, please. -Rewarding the player with tons of kills a power weapon just creates snowballing.
  18. By their own admission it's more of a free test demo than an actual game. My only thoughts on it are: 1. I dislike the VR fad and am not even remotely surprised 343i is trend-hopping. 2. Could be an indication that they plan on releasing VR spinoffs in the future. I doubt it's some one-off thing they did just for the hell of it. Oh and: 3. In typical Microsoft PR talk fashion they're calling it "Mixed Reality" instead of "Virtual Reality".
  19. It would add an interesting dynamic to some maps, but it could also hamper map flow. I think it could work. Say a 2v2 map with a boosted power position but your teammate has to press a button in a different part of the map, and it only lasts around 15s before it has to recharge.
  20. I feel there's little point in putting a scope on a weapon that will be literally unable to even take advantage of that scope. Unoriginal answer I know but it again is a case by case thing. Slapping a slight zoom on the energy sword that changes it's lunge behavior...okay. It's a bit silly, but I can understand it. Slapping an ACOG on an SMG that can only hit targets which are ten feet away anyways...completely pointless, the gun will never be able to utilize it.
  21. I'm not a huge fan of tying it to scope because what if I need to destroy a vehicle at long range, or what if one is closing in on me but I'm forced to awkwardly scope in? I think there's two other possible ways to merge those weapons: -Have the charge up laser consume ammo and deal damage as well as the much more powerful final burst. -Have the final burst be a somewhat continuous, extremely high damage beam that lasts for a second or two instead of being a single shot. I played with something similar to the last one on an old CMT map for Halo Custom Edition. Was pretty fun, could push over vehicles and melt multiple infantry if you reacted fast enough.
  22. He negs me anytime I say anything remotely bad about Halo 3. Though yeah, I agree with his point anyways. Remove ground pound from the game, make it so hitting B at the top of your jump does a very fast straight downward strike with bonus damage / stun. Kill two birds with one stone without getting in the way of crouch jumps.
  23. None of them ideally. Bubbleshield is definitely not something I want to see return. The only real way to counter it is to step inside...usually just to take a Shotgun to the face. Deployable Cover and Hardlight Shield at least have some level of counter-play. They're still pretty annoying to deal with anyways.
  24. (Modern) Bethesda creates buggy games that have a lot of core potential but never actually live up to that potential and basically require tons of community fixes mods to even come close to reaching it. Skyrim and Fallout 3 are exceedingly average games mostly carried by their surrounding hype, not their actual quality. Their base combat is, to be blunt, utter shit, and their RPG aspects (quests, level and item systems, faction systems and dialogue, etc) are definitely passable but by no means mind blowing. Fallout 4 is definitely a major improvement in terms of combat, but a significant step back in other areas. Skyrim was completely gutted of most of the things that would've made it stand out prior to it's release and would've been a way better game if the devs weren't rushed on time. That is basically the only bad thing about Bethesda though, making a handful of mediocre games. To my knowledge the whole paid mods thing is the first anti-consumer thing they've ever done. So I can still respect them relative to a lot of other AAA companies. Also on a related note, Fallout 1 is free on steam for the next 24 hours.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.