Customizable loadouts have destroyed multiplayer shooters

[Brian Tams]

*snip*

Two Things.

1. I have no problem with class-based shooters. Developers have a great amount of control over weapon balance in games like Battlefield 2. My problem is when players are given total control over what goes in their kits. Its almost impossible to balance that.
The only game I've seen find some semblance of balance over player customization is Team Fortress 2.

2. The problem I have with customizable class shooters is that its all we're getting nowadays. The game industry is a broken mess; when one game strikes gold (CoD 4), we're bound to get a bajillion copies of the same thing. However, if you look at the shooters on the horizon, it seems that the soulless copying is never going to end. The last game series that took a traditional stance on multiplayer was Halo, and Halo 4 dipped its toes in the water of customizable classes and I wouldn't be shocked if it took the plunge in 5.

Trust me, if there was still at least one multiplayer game that was still doing things traditionally I wouldn't be upset. But there are none.

You're really going to need to explain this one because it doesn't make any sense. Along with hardly justifying that the "table" is unbalanced, there's absolutely no reason to assume that players can't learn how to play "properly". I, and many people I know, started out with class-based games, and we had absolutely no trouble picking up the nature of online shooters, and I'd imagine many more people are in a similar situation.

I have no idea what I was on about there, in all honesty. I had kinda lost control of what I was saying at that point, so your guess is as good as mine :/

I'm sure I had some point, just not very well communicated.

I am going to give some thought about what you said regarding regenerating health and camping, though. You maybe on to something there.

 

[Ticklefist]

Counter-Strike had customizable loadouts. That about the time online multiplayer shooters starting dying? Immediately?

 

[rofltehcat]

One problem is that with a large amount of weapons, the differences between them have to be rather small to balance them well. Even then certain upgrades and perks can still turn something that wouldn't be so bad in and of itself into a balance problem. This means that the increased amount of choices can actually decrease perceived variety.

I've played some Renegade X (C&C Renegade remake) recently, which is based mainly on classes and the variety between the classes is much bigger than any modern military shooter of the last few years.

I think a good model is for example Battlefield (BC2, 3, haven't played 4) although I think the amount of different weapons may still be too big. Offering classes with unique weapons is a good idea, although I think limiting it to, say, 3 or so very distinctive weapons per class (+ maybe 3 cross-class options, e.g. marksman rifle, shotgun, assault shotgun) would be preferable to giving each class 10 or so different weapons that are not as distinct.
However, that would also require good weapon balancing, or else people might quickly get the impression that they are being shoehorned into one of the options.

I also think further customizing options like weapon attachments and perks might also be too plentyful.

In theory giving the player many choices is good but it really has to be executed well. On the other hand, a class system also needs to be executed well or you end up with teams of 80% snipers sitting on a hill and not capping anything (see BF:BC2, the team with more snipers usually loses; though that is more of a player idiocy issue).

 

[MysticSlayer]

*snip*

Two Things.

1. I have no problem with class-based shooters. Developers have a great amount of control over weapon balance in games like Battlefield 2. My problem is when players are given total control over what goes in their kits. Its almost impossible to balance that.
The only game I've seen find some semblance of balance over player customization is Team Fortress 2.

I don't think they are designed to be 100% balanced. I know some guy from Infinity Ward (prior to the 2009 exodus) once said the fun is supposed to come in actually trying to break the game and find completely overpowered classes. The failure comes when the developers don't carefully plan it out. CoD4 had a lot of potentially "broken" classes, but the map design and relation of "broken" classes with each other ultimately balanced the game out in the end. MW2 just showed almost not sign of caring, and while it was fun at times to break the game, it was hard not to overlook that IW spent more time finding ways to break it than they did trying to make those broken systems balance out in the end. We see similar trends happen in card games a lot.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to how much work the developer is willing to put into it. A lot of developers seem to stop at just making things customizable with little thought of how to make it fun and balanced. It's not an issue with customization (CoD4 showed that it can work very well) but with developers not putting in adequate effort.

2. The problem I have with class shooters is that its all we're getting nowadays. The game industry is a broken mess; when one game strikes gold (CoD 4), we're bound to get a bajillion copies of the same thing. However, if you look at the shooters on the horizon, it seems that the soulless copying is never going to end. The last game series that took a traditional stance on multiplayer was Halo, and Halo 4 dipped its toes in the water of customizable classes and I wouldn't be shocked if it took the plunge in 5.

Trust me, if there was still at least one multiplayer game that was still doing things traditionally I wouldn't be upset. But there are none.

Don't worry, I get the issue with over saturation ruining your favorite franchises. I was really ticked off when Battlefield started breaking its systems in order to accommodate more customization. I imagine someone will step in to capture the feeling of some of people's favorite classics sooner or later. I just hope they do a good job when they do start doing it, because a few past attempts seem to have failed miserably.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I 100% disagree

I much much much much MUCH prefer the custom load-outs than I do the old school style. You could make the argument that skill is needed but I found most of my deaths when playing Halo wasn't because the guy I was fighting was better than I was; it was that he got to the bigger toy faster than I did. I don't care how good you are, a fight between the guy with the beginning assault rifle and the guy who got to the power weapon first is not going to go well for the assault rifle guy.

As long as the weapons are properly balanced, I would much prefer to be able to choose my assault rifle or other class. I am a sneaky jerk type player so I prefer the low fire rate but high power weapons. My other buddy likes to run and gun so he typically chooses a SMG pray and spray type of weapon for fights. Both have their pros and cons. I've never had balancing issues in CoD (though that does seem to be getting worse with these DLC weapons) and giving me the options instead of seeing who's sprints faster is my preference.

As to the "Do I risk it for a power weapon", that still is present (in CoD at least). I have a few different class types but one I like to call is "Power Soldier". Basically, I have a knife and a pistol. EVERYTHING else is put into making my individual soldier a bad-ass killing machine. I am at an extreme disadvantage in the beginning until I either kill a man or I find an already dead man and grab his weapon. This is a calculated risk on my part when I use this class; if it's going well, I keep it. If it starts falling apart, I grab my better balanced class. Pros and Cons.

As for camping, I found that as big a problem in Halo as it is in CoD. In Halo, it just starts a few minutes into the match where CoD it can begin right away. However, I balance that with knowing your position (hey, wasn't that point #1?). I KNOW where people like to camp, so I either go in ready to fire or I toss a grenade (or flashbang) if I know someone is hiding there.

So as long as the weapons are balanced correctly, give me custom load-outs any day of the week over the old-school pick-up. It's really a preference thing; both systems have their pros and cons. I much prefer the customized option but that doesn't make pick-ups a bad system; I just don't like it.

even if I somewhat agree with your opinion, I do think COD has been going downhill since ~COD4 in terms of balance, the games are excellent for hectic insanity Michael bay type multiplayer, but that's not the point of the thread, so I'll leave my peace on that.

OT: I disagree, there isn't a "one shoe fits all" for multiplayer games, you appear to enjoy quake/halo style games while some people prefer the custom loadouts style, both have pros and cons and highly depend on the devs of the game balancing it out for what they are going for.

I didn't play quake online, only played LAN a whole ton, so I won't speak on that, but in Halo, HOLY FUCK. the game was complete map control, whoever reached the big guns first would usually get the first kill and then control that section of the map like a vulture waiting for the ammo to respawn, which left the other teams players at a disadvantage every time they spawned. Now I had plenty of fun with halo, but there were definitely plenty of games where the other team abused the fucking shit out of this to win, even if my team was better all around in player skill (one particular match we lost by two, and we didn't get any of the "power" weapons for more than 2-5 seconds the entire game, talk about guerrilla tactics.)

Some people don't like this, two of the PC's biggest FPS franchises play the custom way (TF2 and Counter strike specifically), you start with whatever you choose and switch your loadouts depending on the situation. (the other team loading up on engineers/turrets? better switch to spy/demo spamming) which is something I much prefer over map controlled power weapons.

hell now that I think about it, some of the most fun I would have in halo was when we would switch on "BR's only" or join games of "shotty/snipes"

 

[Jusey1]

I didn't play quake online, only played LAN a whole ton, so I won't speak on that, but in Halo, HOLY FUCK. the game was complete map control, whoever reached the big guns first would usually get the first kill and then control that section of the map like a vulture waiting for the ammo to respawn, which left the other teams players at a disadvantage every time they spawned.

Like I said, pistol is best weapon in the Halo series. In the older games, 3 shots and got a kill. Newer games, 5 shots... And since the pistol is normally the default secondary weapon... Ye'h.

I think the only weapons better than the pistol depends on the game. In Halo Reach, the only thing better is the Battle Rifle cause it has 15 shots per load instead of 8. (Both the pistol and battle rifle does same amount of damage too).

But then again... I'm highly accurate and I always aim for the head... So I'm naturally am deadly with anything that has a scope. (You'll hate the shit out of me if I have a sniper rifle in that game)...



So ye'h... I always count the whole "big guns first" argument invalid just cause of that pistol. The only time that argument CAN be valid would be if the big gun in question is a Scorpion Tank and the enemy is using it far enough away from the enemy team's spawn base... Seriously, that tank is the only true OP thing in the Halo series just cause those tanks are instant hitters, one hitters, and can be at sniper-rifle range! The other big guns, like the rocket launchers and plasma launcher are really weak and only useful if you are actually close enough to your target... In which case, pistol kill for me...

Actually... Come to think about it. Almost every weapon in the Halo series is really only useful within the same range of which the pistol have... If further, it gotta be pretty much pure luck or best timing shots. The only good stuff to use at longer rangers would be the sniper rifles (Both human and alien versions) and tanks...

Anyways. I've rambled enough on this topic! I think you got the idea by now of what I'm saying with this.

Now I had plenty of fun with halo, but there were definitely plenty of games where the other team abused the fucking shit out of this to win, even if my team was better all around in player skill (one particular match we lost by two, and we didn't get any of the "power" weapons for more than 2-5 seconds the entire game, talk about guerrilla tactics.)

With me, it is normally the player with the most skill (If FFA) or the most skilled team who wins EXCEPT in servers which there are bottomless clip... Then you have OP rocket spamming players and the game isn't fun... (That and tank spamming, which can only happen on a few maps and most server normally has tanks and banchees disable).

Then again... I only play the original Halo on PC online. The only other Halo I played online was Halo Reach and that was temporally.

hell now that I think about it, some of the most fun I would have in halo was when we would switch on "BR's only" or join games of "shotty/snipes"

Firstly... Shotgun Creek. I love doing that! (No shields. CTF mode. Only shotguns and grenades).

Secondly, most of my fun with Halo comes from CTF, Oddball, Race, or Zombies. I rarely do slayer. (Normally with slayer games, I win with all my kills being pistol kills XD).

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Firstly... Shotgun Creek. I love doing that! (No shields. CTF mode. Only shotguns and grenades).

Secondly, most of my fun with Halo comes from CTF, Oddball, Race, or Zombies. I rarely do slayer. (Normally with slayer games, I win with all my kills being pistol kills XD).

i'm a bit lazy at the moment, but I'll just say this (I've played every halo online/LAN, and I got pretty damn competitive with 2 and 3): You were playing with people worlds different than I was, abusing the sniper and rocket launcher (depending on the map) was absolutely key for most cheese strategies, while the pistol is perfectly OP in its own right as a starting weapon, the sniper and rocket launcher were head and shoulders above it when it came to online. I was used to playing against the people who could quick/no scope in a heartbeat, you were lucky to get 1-2 shots off unless the person was severely average. Hell, my cousin was semi-pro at the game, and he hardly ever used the pistol just based off of map control, he 50-0'd me in some of the new maps a few times just based off of knowing where weapon spawns happened and how the map worked, and I used to be in the upper 40's range consistently in Halo 2.

Also, I think the most fun (at least among friends) was putting together a hammers only match of free for all. Holy hell..the speakers sounded like they were dying having 5 hammer explosions in the span of .5 seconds XD not to mention the physics of the game lol