Post by Megaqwerty on Aug 31, 2012 19:55:49 GMT -5
One consequence of allowing players in Black Ops 2 to forgo a weapon in lieu of other class options is that it exacerbates the Warlord problem.
In MW2 and BO1, Bling and Warlord had the intrinsic problem in that they primarily affect the player’s weapon, not the player himself (with the exception of Warlord’s pro benefit). This becomes an issue as a player’s gun is divisible from the player and consequently leads to possibility of a player acquiring a Warlord’d weapon without having spawned the perk.
(This can happen in a variety of ways, such as the player intentionally killing himself or merely scavenging it from someone he killed.)
In those games, this had the impact, at worst, of a player effectively having two perks. Ultimately, combining two attachments with another blue or orange perk almost always does not justify the investment to do this consistently (i.e. planting a TI, switching classes, and then committing suicide).
However, Black Ops 2 raises the bar dramatically in the potential for this exploit. A weapon and its associated attachments now all have much higher opportunity costs whereas previous games handed out primaries and one attachment for free. Within the new create-a-class, a fully tricked out gun costs five points, half of the player’s allotment. This exploit thus allows a player to effectively have a fifteen point class.
Additionally, attachment functionality has been upgraded, with all gun effects having been moved from perks to attachments. This means that a player could orchestrate a class that combines Sleight of Hand, Steady Aim, Stalker, Ghost, Flak Jacket, Lightweight, Quickdraw, Ninja, and Sit Rep without a single kill (save perhaps himself).
I’m not going to discuss if regularly trying to do this intentionally is viable or if even having a dedicated member in a group who delivers guns as dumien suggested is viable.
I’m here to discuss how Treyarch could potentially completely remove this from being a factor in Call of Duty.
The solution is simple: make attachments have some other cost than class points. Now have a perk which removes or reduces that cost but has no other function.
This result should be clear: if a player lacks the requisite perk and somehow acquires a three attachment gun, he will have to deal with the associated costs because he chose to forgo that perk.
An example scheme:
-All guns come with a free attachment.
-Subsequent attachments reduce mobility by 7% (three attachments will result in a 14% mobility deduction), but cost zero class points.
-Warlord, a tier two perk (i.e. is in a different tier than both Lightweight and Marathon), entirely removes the deduction.
-Selecting a third attachment does not require a wild card.
The goal of this scheme should be clear: if a player is not prepared for the burden of a multiple attachment weapon because he did not spec for it, he must pay a cost.
(It also affords more class flexibility. You could forgo Warlord and just eat the mobility cost or use Lightweight instead, etc., but that’s beside the point.)
The cost of attachments could be anything. It could be range. It could be damage. It could be recoil. (But it should be something attachments themselves do not buff…else you could put a grip as your third attachment for free). I went with mobility because it makes sense from both a gameplay and a realism perspective.
This does have the issue where a player could still spawn with no weapon but with Warlord. However, should he acquire a fully tricked out gun, he will only increase his effective class by a single point, not five. (For previous games, this would be a non-issue as guns are free. Within Black Ops 2, this could be resolved by making the player's first primary also free.)
(This same principle can also be applied to Overkill, which has similar issues: associate some cost with the second primary that is not class points. Hell, you could make it also cost mobility and also be removed by Warlord.)
Nickel for your thoughts.
A single perk is too low of a cost to offset any potential cost of attachments.
marth’s very similar problem:
Relegating attachment costs to a single perk negatively impacts balance within Pick 10.
Here’s my solution, which resolves both of these.
Presently, with Pick 10, we have four large categories from which to choose:
-Weapons
-Perks
-Equipment
-Wildcards
I propose a fifth category: Capacity.
Capacity represents the ability of the player character to carry x points of stuff. A gun is one point and an attachment is one point. If a player exceeds his capacity, he is burdened with some penalty for each point that is he encumbered. (In this scheme, guns and attachments are effectively free.)
One point of capacity costs one class point: this corresponds to the present BO2 (as of Gamescom) where a gun costs one point and each attachment costs one point (save the third, which costs two). Both weapons a player carries exerts weight.
The problem with the scheme I had proposed (ex. a perk removes entirely the attachment penalty) is that it both failed to replicate the original Pick 10 scheme and that it was still subject to exploitation. In my scheme, a player could still spawn with six perks and then pick up a triple attachment weapon with no penalty…so long as one of those perks was Warlord. (In fact, my scheme allowed him to simply spawn with that weapon…effectively turning Warlord into Stopping Power.)
In this scheme, after selecting six perks, a player would only have one point remaining to assign to Capacity. Ergo, picking up a weapon with any amount of attachments will burden the player, just as I had intended with my original scheme.
Conversely, if a player puts eight points into capacity because he wants two triple attachment weapons (Gamescom didn’t make it clear if players must pay the triple attachment wildcard twice to do this), but drops one of them because of whatever reason, he will be ready to accept any weapon with any number of attachments that he subsequently finds.
In BO2’s scheme, spawning with a triple attachment weapon costs five points. Here, it costs effectively four points (the cost of capacity so as to completely remove the penalty) thus resolving both problems. Spawning with even more gun costs even more points.
The only question is exactly what is the encumbrance penalty would be, but I’m not going there. It’s bad. You don’t want it. The numbers are not the point of this discussion.
-Example:
You place 9 points into perks and 1 point into capacity. Since guns are free, you spawn with one primary. If you find another gun on the ground, regardless of its nature, you will pay a penalty if you place it into your second slot because you will then exceed your capacity.
In MW2 and BO1, Bling and Warlord had the intrinsic problem in that they primarily affect the player’s weapon, not the player himself (with the exception of Warlord’s pro benefit). This becomes an issue as a player’s gun is divisible from the player and consequently leads to possibility of a player acquiring a Warlord’d weapon without having spawned the perk.
(This can happen in a variety of ways, such as the player intentionally killing himself or merely scavenging it from someone he killed.)
In those games, this had the impact, at worst, of a player effectively having two perks. Ultimately, combining two attachments with another blue or orange perk almost always does not justify the investment to do this consistently (i.e. planting a TI, switching classes, and then committing suicide).
However, Black Ops 2 raises the bar dramatically in the potential for this exploit. A weapon and its associated attachments now all have much higher opportunity costs whereas previous games handed out primaries and one attachment for free. Within the new create-a-class, a fully tricked out gun costs five points, half of the player’s allotment. This exploit thus allows a player to effectively have a fifteen point class.
Additionally, attachment functionality has been upgraded, with all gun effects having been moved from perks to attachments. This means that a player could orchestrate a class that combines Sleight of Hand, Steady Aim, Stalker, Ghost, Flak Jacket, Lightweight, Quickdraw, Ninja, and Sit Rep without a single kill (save perhaps himself).
I’m not going to discuss if regularly trying to do this intentionally is viable or if even having a dedicated member in a group who delivers guns as dumien suggested is viable.
I’m here to discuss how Treyarch could potentially completely remove this from being a factor in Call of Duty.
The solution is simple: make attachments have some other cost than class points. Now have a perk which removes or reduces that cost but has no other function.
This result should be clear: if a player lacks the requisite perk and somehow acquires a three attachment gun, he will have to deal with the associated costs because he chose to forgo that perk.
An example scheme:
-All guns come with a free attachment.
-Subsequent attachments reduce mobility by 7% (three attachments will result in a 14% mobility deduction), but cost zero class points.
-Warlord, a tier two perk (i.e. is in a different tier than both Lightweight and Marathon), entirely removes the deduction.
-Selecting a third attachment does not require a wild card.
The goal of this scheme should be clear: if a player is not prepared for the burden of a multiple attachment weapon because he did not spec for it, he must pay a cost.
(It also affords more class flexibility. You could forgo Warlord and just eat the mobility cost or use Lightweight instead, etc., but that’s beside the point.)
The cost of attachments could be anything. It could be range. It could be damage. It could be recoil. (But it should be something attachments themselves do not buff…else you could put a grip as your third attachment for free). I went with mobility because it makes sense from both a gameplay and a realism perspective.
This does have the issue where a player could still spawn with no weapon but with Warlord. However, should he acquire a fully tricked out gun, he will only increase his effective class by a single point, not five. (For previous games, this would be a non-issue as guns are free. Within Black Ops 2, this could be resolved by making the player's first primary also free.)
(This same principle can also be applied to Overkill, which has similar issues: associate some cost with the second primary that is not class points. Hell, you could make it also cost mobility and also be removed by Warlord.)
Nickel for your thoughts.
Lexapro brings up a good point:
A single perk is too low of a cost to offset any potential cost of attachments.
marth’s very similar problem:
Relegating attachment costs to a single perk negatively impacts balance within Pick 10.
Here’s my solution, which resolves both of these.
Presently, with Pick 10, we have four large categories from which to choose:
-Weapons
-Perks
-Equipment
-Wildcards
I propose a fifth category: Capacity.
Capacity represents the ability of the player character to carry x points of stuff. A gun is one point and an attachment is one point. If a player exceeds his capacity, he is burdened with some penalty for each point that is he encumbered. (In this scheme, guns and attachments are effectively free.)
One point of capacity costs one class point: this corresponds to the present BO2 (as of Gamescom) where a gun costs one point and each attachment costs one point (save the third, which costs two). Both weapons a player carries exerts weight.
The problem with the scheme I had proposed (ex. a perk removes entirely the attachment penalty) is that it both failed to replicate the original Pick 10 scheme and that it was still subject to exploitation. In my scheme, a player could still spawn with six perks and then pick up a triple attachment weapon with no penalty…so long as one of those perks was Warlord. (In fact, my scheme allowed him to simply spawn with that weapon…effectively turning Warlord into Stopping Power.)
In this scheme, after selecting six perks, a player would only have one point remaining to assign to Capacity. Ergo, picking up a weapon with any amount of attachments will burden the player, just as I had intended with my original scheme.
Conversely, if a player puts eight points into capacity because he wants two triple attachment weapons (Gamescom didn’t make it clear if players must pay the triple attachment wildcard twice to do this), but drops one of them because of whatever reason, he will be ready to accept any weapon with any number of attachments that he subsequently finds.
In BO2’s scheme, spawning with a triple attachment weapon costs five points. Here, it costs effectively four points (the cost of capacity so as to completely remove the penalty) thus resolving both problems. Spawning with even more gun costs even more points.
The only question is exactly what is the encumbrance penalty would be, but I’m not going there. It’s bad. You don’t want it. The numbers are not the point of this discussion.
-Example:
You place 9 points into perks and 1 point into capacity. Since guns are free, you spawn with one primary. If you find another gun on the ground, regardless of its nature, you will pay a penalty if you place it into your second slot because you will then exceed your capacity.