Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Execute/Dumbo.exe]

Okay, well, let's look at the very foundations of MGO, you have the defender, who is slow and ungainly but packs an impressive punch and has a lot of offensive tools.
Then, the Scout, who, while flimsy, is a great support role, as his sniper rifle (plus an ability to link with other players but every class has that) and various other support tools is practically designed to help the Defender and Infiltrator.
Then, finally the Infiltrater, he's the guy with the Invisibility Camo, but it doesn't last long and they are easily killed in a firefight, they also have access to stuff like the Fulton cannon, or other gear designed for picking off enemies in the fray that the scout can't get to.

So yes, the classes are balanced, but letting the defender play with stealth Camo is unfair, and letting the infiltrator work with a rocket launcher is also unfair.

[KingofstarrySkies]

Neither are 'better', they're just preferences. And this more just sounds like you're a bit salty from people beating you.

That said, FUCK the notion of spammable explosives in any game. Seriously. UGH.

[Yoink]

And this more just sounds like you're a bit salty from people beating you.

Heh... is this directed at me?
Usually I just play as whichever class is the most overpowered. There's always one. I prefer to play as a medic, but if the "medic class" doesn't allow me to have my favourite gun or any decent equipment it's not much fun, even if healing people pulls in a huge amount of points. As much as Call of Duty is pretty much a braindead arena shooter these days, the loadout mechanic is very good... you can choose any setup you want and make it as stupid as you please.

I can't remember what sort of gear I took in the old MGO, it was a long time ago and I didn't get to play it all that much.
I remember it being a lot of fun, and there was plenty of variety in people's equipment from what I saw.

[KingofstarrySkies]

PLAYS AS THE MOST OVERPOWERED
COMPLAINS
I'M SO CONFUSED D:

[EnigmaticHat]

Having the ability to do every skill is dumb because than everyone will find out The Perfect Loadout and nobody will ever use anything else, thereby ruining the meta and making the game a festival of death and suffering to all those that haven't unlocked everything in The Perfect Loadout.

Or just make the game very well so there is no "perfect loadout". Don't have to compensate for the game sucking if it doesn't suck.

Never happens.  The only games where that sort of works are games like CS:GO and DOTA 2 where you don't get to pick whatever you want, and even then there have been things it both of those games known to be OP for a good long time.

More to the point, there are two ways to differentiate equipment in shooters: role and DPS.  Problem is that DPS is not a true valid choice (always pick highest DPS), and including items that fill multiple valid roles is a lot of work if you want to maintain balance.  The issue with that is that the difference between an assault rifle and a slightly shittier assault rifle or a slightly differently ranged assault rifle tends to be mostly academic except at the higher levels of play, but the difference between a rocket launcher and a shotgun is huge.  Even more so with something extreme like invisibility.  If you allow everyone to pick every thing, you have to say that everything in your game is equally or mostly equally balanced against everything else in your game, including things that are functionally non-comparable like support items versus guns.

Classes take this and make it so much easier on the devs.  Now suddenly similar guns with different DPS isn't a pointless gun, its a feature, because it allows them to show that each class is better in its own area of specialization.  Items like invisibility, rapid healing, and explosives, all of which tend to be either massively UP or OP, suddenly can be allowed to be disproportionately powerful provided the class that has them is bad at everything else.

It also allows you to have X number of different game experiences within your game, instead of just one.  Good value for money and all that.

Neither are 'better', they're just preferences. And this more just sounds like you're a bit salty from people beating you.

That said, FUCK the notion of spammable explosives in any game. Seriously. UGH.

THIS.  Explosive spam is NEVER conductive to good gameplay.  Devs need to learn that.  Including grenade spam in any FPS dramatically cuts down on that game's life time simply because people will realize the game is fricken BS.  TF2 sort of gets a pass because its explosives are more of hybrid direct fire/AoE weapons rather than pure AoE, but still.  If you pick the wrong server, game mode or map even TF2 can get utterly clogged with AoE.

[Neonivek]

Never happens.

Quake 3 Arena.

There a classless shooter that isn't imbalanced.

[EnigmaticHat]

...doesn't Quake 3 not have loadouts?

[Zangi]

You don't need classes if everyone can't customize their loadout.  'Balance!'

[Yoink]

PLAYS AS THE MOST OVERPOWERED
COMPLAINS
I'M SO CONFUSED D:

It's not about winning, it's about having an enjoyable and interesting gameplay experience.
That said, I prefer to win. Shit, this isn't even making sense to me any more... still, I'd rather be losing at an interesting game where players use wildly varied tactics and equipment than be kicking arse at a game where most everyone (including me) sits on a roof somewhere protected by proximity mines picking people off through a scope.

[Execute/Dumbo.exe]

PLAYS AS THE MOST OVERPOWERED
COMPLAINS
I'M SO CONFUSED D:

It's not about winning, it's about having an enjoyable and interesting gameplay experience.
That said, I prefer to win. Shit, this isn't even making sense to me any more... still, I'd rather be losing at an interesting game where players use wildly varied tactics and equipment than be kicking arse at a game where most everyone (including me) sits on a roof somewhere protected by proximity mines picking people off through a scope.

See, that's why people have cover, and shields, and invisibility Camo, and the ability to shoot said proximity mines, and rocket launchers...

[Radio Controlled]

Still, the idea that you force people to cooperate more (often rather a problem in online shooters) by using classes is a valid one I think. You force players to be dependent on each other to fill the holes in their abilities, meaning you have less one-man armies stomping around just fragging everything to get the best K/D ratio.

Of course, another option is to separate 'special/support abilities' from weapons itself, so you can have both engineers, medics and heavy assaults with the big machinegun, but one's abilities/stats will mesh better with that weapon than others, without actually restricting access. But then certain combo's of weapons and abilities might still be OP, so still a problem to make different playstyles equally viable.

[Neonivek]

PLAYS AS THE MOST OVERPOWERED
COMPLAINS
I'M SO CONFUSED D:

It's not about winning, it's about having an enjoyable and interesting gameplay experience.
That said, I prefer to win. Shit, this isn't even making sense to me any more... still, I'd rather be losing at an interesting game where players use wildly varied tactics and equipment than be kicking arse at a game where most everyone (including me) sits on a roof somewhere protected by proximity mines picking people off through a scope.

See, that's why people have cover, and shields, and invisibility Camo, and the ability to shoot said proximity mines, and rocket launchers...

I can certainly think of a few games where I knew how to win, but was so vehemently against using it (or against not using it) that I ruin the game for myself.

Though, in the end it always boiled down to a fault in the game.

[Execute/Dumbo.exe]

Neo, some things are supposed to beat other thing via power of balance, a game of Rock-PaperScissors where each one destroys each other doesn't make much sense, and being in a game of it where you refuse to use paper against someone who always uses rock doesn't make it seem like a fault in the game.

[Neonivek]

Neo, some things are supposed to beat other thing via power of balance, a game of Rock-PaperScissors where each one destroys each other doesn't make much sense, and being in a game of it where you refuse to use paper against someone who always uses rock doesn't make it seem like a fault in the game.

What if Paper is actually a secret that the game never tells you?

Now what if the game gave you hundreds and hundreds of signs... all of which lose to Rock... But then give you Paper... in a game where all enemies are rock.

[SOLDIER First]

What does the second sentence even mean?