Battlezone Forums

completely agree

i am quite another one of those thugs. i mostly love to get into some serious dog fights. but if i see any try to attack the base i attack it first and then go toi my objective, but ofcourse im going to in a bezerk manner in killing my enemies. =P this makes golem golem.

The problem with most modern games is the system where the people who play the game alot get rewarded for their time. For instance take the most modern FPS games with their unlock systems and their idea that gun 1 is better than gun 2. Because of this people are driven away form games because since someone is a hgher level than them, they are better. One example of this is in Battlefield 3 where the early game snipers are only good in close quarters and you have to use these inferior weapons before you can get something decent.

i agree in one sense, that you get better weapons the more you play, but, if you take that away, it removes a big incentive to keep playing (people want powah!)

i put the idea out there a few years back that weapons could become less effective in BZ2 the more you progress in order to compensate for the increased skill gained from experience; kind of a reverse tech tree, but i don't see much demand for it.

you can buy a shortcut pack for BF3 now so you can get all your unlocks at once. still wouldn't help me, though, because i would still suck.

IMHO levels should give you options, not make you just flat out better.

Why should the incentive of new guns be the reason that you play a game? If the only reason you play a game is to get the next big thing, then why bother in the end. In some games where that is a game mechanic (borderlands, diablo ect.) then this is ok as as the enemies are leveled around this, so really you are using the exact same weapon but it tells you that it is better. There are only 2 games which have a decent unlock system IMO. They are Crysis 2 and Tribes Ascend and this is since the unlocks are sideways and not straight up. In Crysis I will quite commoly use the weapon that you start off with (Scar) because it is one of the best all rounders. The same goes with Tribes where even though I have a decent amount of high level weapons unlocked, I will still use some of the starting weapons as well.

If I had my way the only unlocks in a game are cosmetic (skins, colours ect.).

Edit: I could buy a BF3 shortcut pack but after you spend $90 AU on a game without any DLC, why should I pay anymore for the sole reason of lining EA's pockets (because we all know that it is EA's idea to have all this paid content and not Dice

I hear that Gotham City Impostors has a good system where when you get an unlock, you can pick from *everything* except for some premium cosmetic stuff. That means that a player who knows what he wants can be just as good equipment wise as one that grabbed a bunch of different things with a ton of unlocks.

unlocks follow human nature: we all want something better and different (well, most of us). i just got a new .30-30, but there's this scoped .308 i would really like, too... it also explains why i have 300+ steam games and n1 has a bazillion.

i also like crysis 2 unlocks - have some basic guns and augment them and your suit.

btw, i saw where the utopians outlawed guns in oz and the crime rate went up 25%

Human nature to improve upon our situation, or
Human nature to hog as much as we possibly can eventhough we never will use it, this lifetime?

I play this game called 'life'. Its kind of like Runescape, has a player-based economy and you need to do a massive amount of grinding to get all the cool unlocks. Monster encounters are, however, rare and the game mechanics could use a little more work.

Zero Angel wrote:...

I used to play a lot of Runescape, but they broke their promises when it came to paying for content (beyond a members fee). In that game, i never had much money but I still managed to get a crap ton of gold in the form of sets of rare armors and things. I tend to be a collector in anything I do.

RS has a massive PvE segment and at one point had almost no PvP until they re-introduced bounty hunter worlds (last existing in RS's first year of existence) and the wilderness (removed to stop gold farmer or something). As such, much of RS was not so much about being competitive in play but in the metagame.

Red Devil wrote:it also explains why i have 300+ steam games and n1 has a bazillion.

I don't drink so I need to escape the bullshit of this community and the world at large somehow else.


Human nature is actually two fold, you have to look at dividual nature, and collective nature. The truth lies in the middle, where the availability of resources controls the exact location.

Nielk1 wrote:IMHO levels should give you options, not make you just flat out better.

Subverted when there are good matching algorithms in play.

I used to play a game called 'Company of Heroes Online' (a now defunct MMORTS) which allowed you to have persistent ability unlocks depending on what 'path' you chose on the tech trees. Higher level characters had an advantage against equally skilled lower level characters because they had more command tree abilities and higher level unlocks for these trees, however the automatching system used an ELO type rating system. A lower level character could get matched against a higher level character but usually in cases where the lower level character had a higher ELO rating (for lack of a better term). I can recall getting matched up against some highly leveled but unskilled opponents and not feeling cheated.

In BZ2 strats we also use a matching system that is manually based. Assuming we get commanders, we do a # draw (2 people passing a hidden number to each other, commanders pick a #, whoever is closer to the hidden number wins). The draw winner then gets first choice of thug, draw loser picks 1, draw winner picks 1, the draw loser picks 2 out of the last 3 available thugs. However even this matching system is not always fair (for example an unfair result might be if the thug skills were S+, A+, A+, B+, B, B -- The picking system will yield these results assuming the T1 commander wins the pick: [T1: S+, A+, B] [T2: A+, B+, B]. I have proposed an 'alternate picking system' when the main picking system cannot yield fair results . The alternate picking system would mean: draw winner picks 1st thug, draw loser picks 2 thugs, draw winner picks 1, draw loser picks 1, till all players are picked. Assuming the same skill distribution as above with T1 commander winning the pick, the results would look like this [T1: S+, B+, B] [T2: A+, A+, B]. Alternate picking system is typically agreed-on before the # is drawn if the commanders believe that the primary picking system cannot yield fair results.

The bz2 picking tradition is entirely dependent on all the commanders having some idea of the skill level/style of the other players. It only works because the community is so small (and getting smaller) I do enjoy it though, when one commander picks his uber thug team and then gets his butt handed to him on a plate by a bunch of scav drivers

i shall be the super thug!. the deadliest but more objective type of thug.. i shall pick my missions dearly when i got no objective

Some notes on the results after hiring psychologists, etc to help another game.

-- GSH