kastenessen
08-04-2008, 05:27 AM
Hi guys,
Just thought I'd post up what I thought about the state of the game - just general comments and suggestions mostly, but we'll see how we go: with these sort of posts, I just like to sit and chat - write down whatever comes to mind.
First up, I got directed to Gunrox by a couple of other friends who I've played some other games with. They said "hey, why don't you download this little game - its only 10 meg"... and whilst I was a little wary of the style, I found it to be an incredibly addictive game with surprisingly deep strategy.
Anyway, I've played a couple accounts to mid-low levels (my highest is 9... my others got banned for farming (my bad; had two pcs, thought it'd be a good idea to get some "insurance items" :( - didnt realise it was frowned upon :P). Now that I've played to a decently high level (in relative terms, anyway), I think I'll start a new account to try out some different builds and kit-outs.
In anycase, I've noticed a few things that do bother me about the game. Firstly, there appears to be some imbalances as far as the weapons go.
This exists, IMO, in two ways - imbalances between certain weapon classes and the progression in the tier system. I'll discuss the first part now, and I'll touch on tier progression later.
Simply put, it appears that sniper/shotgun or rifle/shotgun is the premier combo. In both cases, you achieve excellent damage and flexibility (the first combination is far better defensively, the second, far better aggressively). The problem, IMO, is less about the quality of the rifle/sniper weapons, and more about the degree to which the shotgun outclasses other close-range options (melee, for example). This is further compounded by the way in which the game does favour defensive strategies (although, not at the lowest levels).
Certainly, I wouldn't advocate much change to shotguns (at least not the lowest tier shotgun - the accuracy/damage at distance is of concern though) ; outside of melee, at the lowest tier, all the weapons seem roughly comparable and all have their uses (for a good example, compare the TMP to the AKS: both have strengths/disadvantages which make both weapons attractive). In order to promote variety, I believe two changes are key: making melee and pistols more attractive close range options, relative to shotguns and incentivising aggressive action (reducing the ability to soak damage).
I suppose the first thing to do in order to make melee and pistols more attractive relative to shotguns, is to first dramatically lower the damage/accuracy of shotguns at a distance. As far as melee goes, while its flexibility and damage are relatively low, its accuracy should be relatively high.
These changes would go a long way to promoting flexibility.
The second issue, I think ties in with the third, so I'll talk about them now. Later levels promote camping/defensive strategies and level progression widens the gulf between levels greatly. And while we're at it, lets quickly talk about the way weapons scale.
Personally, I think the whole problem lies in the degree to which as you progress you get far better at soaking damage (and as you get better weapons which promote a ranged game - i.e., the disadvantages of weapons like the AKS disappear very quickly).
Firstly, there is a serious problem with how much damage reduction, health, regeneration, and perks like turtle, you can get per character. I'll discuss each one in turn.
Damage Reduction is obviously a serious concern. Currently, I understand it is possible to get up to 90% damage reduction (I may be incorrect). It just isn't fun seeing your units deal such pitiful damage and makes games last far longer than they have to. Obviously, the key issues are armour providing more and more % reduction (and of course, as health/damage scale upwards, such %s become more efficient). Turtle/shelter contribute to this issue, but I'll discuss them later.
As easy solution to this problem is to implement a cap to the amount of reduction possible - I think a good limit would be 25%: including armour, % reduction perks, etc... but not including turtle/shelter (these perks would still increase reduction, in my perfect world - we'll get to that soon).
Next up is health. In my view, it is too easy to get huge amounts of HP - this really makes games between people of not equal level problematic. Even a small increase in HP represents 1-2 extra hits you can reliably take. I think the fix for this is easy - levels should provide no extra HP and the HP perk should give only about +3 per choice. This way, you can still maintain stuff like MegaHealth without providing too much HP (although even perks like MegaHealth could be toned down somewhat). These changes reduce the gulf between levels and in general, help to reward aggressive strategies (by putting a premium on getting the first shots off).
As to regeneration - I think a cap on regeneration would work nicely. Something like 10% of maximum HP per turn (or 5% of maximum HP per turn). Again, this reduces the gulf between levels and promotes aggression.
Now, Turtle/Shelter... there seems to be a lot of upset lately about these perks. Personally, I think the best fix is to, in addition to reducing poison resistance, to make two further changes: reduce melee resistance and cap the total reduction from turtle/shelter to 50% (in addition to the 25% cap earlier, for a maximum 75% redux with the perks).
All of these suggestions are aimed at increasing diversity, streamlining level progression and creating a disincentive to camp.
The other thing I'm kinda concerned about is the way weapons seem to ramp up. Personally, I'd like to see smaller steps between weapon tiers. Slight increases in damage/range... whatever, but in exchange for reductions to accuracy at each level.
I haven't thought too much about that last point, but in general, I think it is best to limit the difference between similiarly levelled players - it is better for the play-space if level 5s, for example, can compete with level 10s, even if this doesn't hold true for differences of 20-30 levels. I think skill should differentiate players, not levels.
My two cents anyway!
kthx.
Just thought I'd post up what I thought about the state of the game - just general comments and suggestions mostly, but we'll see how we go: with these sort of posts, I just like to sit and chat - write down whatever comes to mind.
First up, I got directed to Gunrox by a couple of other friends who I've played some other games with. They said "hey, why don't you download this little game - its only 10 meg"... and whilst I was a little wary of the style, I found it to be an incredibly addictive game with surprisingly deep strategy.
Anyway, I've played a couple accounts to mid-low levels (my highest is 9... my others got banned for farming (my bad; had two pcs, thought it'd be a good idea to get some "insurance items" :( - didnt realise it was frowned upon :P). Now that I've played to a decently high level (in relative terms, anyway), I think I'll start a new account to try out some different builds and kit-outs.
In anycase, I've noticed a few things that do bother me about the game. Firstly, there appears to be some imbalances as far as the weapons go.
This exists, IMO, in two ways - imbalances between certain weapon classes and the progression in the tier system. I'll discuss the first part now, and I'll touch on tier progression later.
Simply put, it appears that sniper/shotgun or rifle/shotgun is the premier combo. In both cases, you achieve excellent damage and flexibility (the first combination is far better defensively, the second, far better aggressively). The problem, IMO, is less about the quality of the rifle/sniper weapons, and more about the degree to which the shotgun outclasses other close-range options (melee, for example). This is further compounded by the way in which the game does favour defensive strategies (although, not at the lowest levels).
Certainly, I wouldn't advocate much change to shotguns (at least not the lowest tier shotgun - the accuracy/damage at distance is of concern though) ; outside of melee, at the lowest tier, all the weapons seem roughly comparable and all have their uses (for a good example, compare the TMP to the AKS: both have strengths/disadvantages which make both weapons attractive). In order to promote variety, I believe two changes are key: making melee and pistols more attractive close range options, relative to shotguns and incentivising aggressive action (reducing the ability to soak damage).
I suppose the first thing to do in order to make melee and pistols more attractive relative to shotguns, is to first dramatically lower the damage/accuracy of shotguns at a distance. As far as melee goes, while its flexibility and damage are relatively low, its accuracy should be relatively high.
These changes would go a long way to promoting flexibility.
The second issue, I think ties in with the third, so I'll talk about them now. Later levels promote camping/defensive strategies and level progression widens the gulf between levels greatly. And while we're at it, lets quickly talk about the way weapons scale.
Personally, I think the whole problem lies in the degree to which as you progress you get far better at soaking damage (and as you get better weapons which promote a ranged game - i.e., the disadvantages of weapons like the AKS disappear very quickly).
Firstly, there is a serious problem with how much damage reduction, health, regeneration, and perks like turtle, you can get per character. I'll discuss each one in turn.
Damage Reduction is obviously a serious concern. Currently, I understand it is possible to get up to 90% damage reduction (I may be incorrect). It just isn't fun seeing your units deal such pitiful damage and makes games last far longer than they have to. Obviously, the key issues are armour providing more and more % reduction (and of course, as health/damage scale upwards, such %s become more efficient). Turtle/shelter contribute to this issue, but I'll discuss them later.
As easy solution to this problem is to implement a cap to the amount of reduction possible - I think a good limit would be 25%: including armour, % reduction perks, etc... but not including turtle/shelter (these perks would still increase reduction, in my perfect world - we'll get to that soon).
Next up is health. In my view, it is too easy to get huge amounts of HP - this really makes games between people of not equal level problematic. Even a small increase in HP represents 1-2 extra hits you can reliably take. I think the fix for this is easy - levels should provide no extra HP and the HP perk should give only about +3 per choice. This way, you can still maintain stuff like MegaHealth without providing too much HP (although even perks like MegaHealth could be toned down somewhat). These changes reduce the gulf between levels and in general, help to reward aggressive strategies (by putting a premium on getting the first shots off).
As to regeneration - I think a cap on regeneration would work nicely. Something like 10% of maximum HP per turn (or 5% of maximum HP per turn). Again, this reduces the gulf between levels and promotes aggression.
Now, Turtle/Shelter... there seems to be a lot of upset lately about these perks. Personally, I think the best fix is to, in addition to reducing poison resistance, to make two further changes: reduce melee resistance and cap the total reduction from turtle/shelter to 50% (in addition to the 25% cap earlier, for a maximum 75% redux with the perks).
All of these suggestions are aimed at increasing diversity, streamlining level progression and creating a disincentive to camp.
The other thing I'm kinda concerned about is the way weapons seem to ramp up. Personally, I'd like to see smaller steps between weapon tiers. Slight increases in damage/range... whatever, but in exchange for reductions to accuracy at each level.
I haven't thought too much about that last point, but in general, I think it is best to limit the difference between similiarly levelled players - it is better for the play-space if level 5s, for example, can compete with level 10s, even if this doesn't hold true for differences of 20-30 levels. I think skill should differentiate players, not levels.
My two cents anyway!
kthx.