PanterA

More guns and being able to change equipment

420 posts in this topic

Traditionally with BF2: PR weapon and character customisation was limited.

 

I wanted to suggest a system similar to the one they have in Insurgency, if of course any of this is possible (I do not know the limitations of the UE4 engine)

 

 

Posted Image

 

Each option adds to the overall weight of the soldier, thus changing performance (running speed, jump height etc), but maybe without the need for a supply point based system. Either ttachments can be earned (level up rewards ala old school CoD4).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of attachments being earned, and IMO mobility should be the same for all players for the sake of cohesion. At best, optics and grips should be customisable. Suppressors shouldn't be included except maybe in specialised kits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well considering the example image is for the "Specialist" role, you're not wrong there.

 

Maybe having to earn them will make things feel a bit...grindy?

 

I wouldnt be too happy if a guy carrying an AT4 rocket and an Assault Rifle could move and be free as someone who only has a Rifleman kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would maintain that parity is key and that it should be limited to a certain number of certain mods per squad, for example there would be 3 optical scopes per squad of 6 (Theoretical numbers), that way you would need to prioritise, give the MG a scope, give your sharpest squad mate one so they can spot with it and give the guy at the back one so he can cover you then your medic, SL and TL take irons and don't get caught up doing the job the other guys should be doing. It would need some balancing but I think it would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would maintain that parity is key and that it should be limited to a certain number of certain mods per squad, for example there would be 3 optical scopes per squad of 6 (Theoretical numbers), that way you would need to prioritise, give the MG a scope, give your sharpest squad mate one so they can spot with it and give the guy at the back one so he can cover you then your medic, SL and TL take irons and don't get caught up doing the job the other guys should be doing. It would need some balancing but I think it would work.

This is a great idea honestly. I just brought up the question of scopes in another thread, and having a limited number per-squad is a cool way to do it. It would have to be equal between teams, regardless of faction though, due to the balance issues scopes can create.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer, we want to look into a form of "role" customization for kits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer, we want to look into a form of "role" customization for kits.

 

Spush, you know all you had to do was: ;)

 

Its trademark man! But thats good to hear, I look forward to hearing more about that in the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer, we want to look into a form of "role" customization for kits.

This brings up a whole new bundle of ideas for how it could be used. Not least it would allow the devs to directly influence what you can and cannot mod on to the weapons on certain maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would maintain that parity is key and that it should be limited to a certain number of certain mods per squad, for example there would be 3 optical scopes per squad of 6 (Theoretical numbers), that way you would need to prioritise, give the MG a scope, give your sharpest squad mate one so they can spot with it and give the guy at the back one so he can cover you then your medic, SL and TL take irons and don't get caught up doing the job the other guys should be doing. It would need some balancing but I think it would work.

This is an awesome idea, having strategically pick mods to adapt or balance situations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good ideas coming up guys, keep it going :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would maintain that parity is key and that it should be limited to a certain number of certain mods per squad, for example there would be 3 optical scopes per squad of 6 (Theoretical numbers), that way you would need to prioritise, give the MG a scope, give your sharpest squad mate one so they can spot with it and give the guy at the back one so he can cover you then your medic, SL and TL take irons and don't get caught up doing the job the other guys should be doing. It would need some balancing but I think it would work.

Absolutely love this idea. I think it some attachments should be restricted until a specific number of people is required to use said attachment, much like the kit system in PR:BF2. That way you discourage one-man squads instead of having one-man squads with a hundred attachments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hoenstly great ideas. 

 

this is the chance you guys have to influence this discussion as we will quickly be moving into this phase of implementation in the next few weeks. 

 

Carry on good sirs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would maintain that parity is key and that it should be limited to a certain number of certain mods per squad, for example there would be 3 optical scopes per squad of 6 (Theoretical numbers), that way you would need to prioritise, give the MG a scope, give your sharpest squad mate one so they can spot with it and give the guy at the back one so he can cover you then your medic, SL and TL take irons and don't get caught up doing the job the other guys should be doing. It would need some balancing but I think it would work.

 

I think that this should definitely be implemented at the core of the customisation side of things.

 

Also should be worth having different roles get access to different types of customasations that arent always optics or foregrips, example;

 

Heavy Barrel attachments available for the riflemans only, Suppressors only available for the spec ops class etc different types of ammo belts for the MGs etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this should definitely be implemented at the core of the customisation side of things.

 

Also should be worth having different roles get access to different types of customasations that arent always optics or foregrips, example;

 

Heavy Barrel attachments available for the riflemans only, Suppressors only available for the spec ops class etc different types of ammo belts for the MGs etc

"Spec-ops" classes are a bad idea. They only do more to encourage lonewolfing that was already too prevalent in PR for my liking.

Optics and foregrips (Would there be any good reason not to have a foregrip?), sure but you start giving out suppressors and it will end up being very frustrating for those without them, practically overpowered in a game in which the enemy can be anywhere.

 

Different types of ammo for ARs/MGs would pretty much just amount to tracer/no tracer. You start bringing in HP/AP ammo and that would necessitate an armour system, which in a game where one or two bullets can kill you is practically redundant. Forcing it so one team doesn't have armour (Insurgents) just to accommodate this would only make it that much more frustrating for one side.

Maybe different sizes of belts, that'd be fine, it'd affect how many you can carry, the handling of your weapon etc.

 

Just don't forget that any performance-changing attachment is another thing the devs have to balance to ensure certain weapons with certain setups aren't overpowered. 

In my personal opinion, the differences between your weapon and the enemy weapons should be relatively unimportant so long as they're of a similar calibre and role. It's not the gun, it's how you use it type of deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will be good, if units could buy equipment, but there will be both limit in cost and availability of such equipment. It would be nice if it could be decided from higher to lover levels.

 

So for example for 30 players team there would be 15 scopes. Platoon leader could choose to have specialized CQB and fire support squads, or just mixed squads. So there should be some predefined asset list for each squad/fireteam like more scopes, only iron, tank hunter, more grenades, increased rifle ammuntion, regular, but at the same time make ability to asset certain piece of equipment to certain units, as well as user defined templates. There could also be free for all option, where whole unit equipment is available to everyone(of course if his class can use this equipment) and first come first serve rule would apply.

 

Adding cost will prevent giving all best assets to one squad, as there won't be able to buy all of it. There could also be system, if squad have a lot of unused equipment(so if guy high in command is their friend and get them pretty much everything), part of it will have first come first server rule, so other units can borrow it, but if original squad request that piece of equipment, borrower won't be able to get it again(so will have it till death).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of restricting minor things like optics, ammo supply etc. across the whole team. It should be squad limitations (I do agree that scopes should be very limited in number) and nothing more, otherwise it'd be a huge cause for argument and require a lot of micromanagement, also like you said prone to abuse by the commander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If equipments could be limited per map (think per "mission"), that would be a good way of controlling a players role whilst also offering customisation. Also has a realistic angle to it too. As a Pl Commander (and bigger assets as a Coy Commander) you're not going to always have GPMG or Javelins attached to you for an op, or have Mortars at your beck and call every day.

 

Short example, AT class. Default weapon a LAW, then on some maps could be allowed the option to take a Javelin/SRAW/AT4 or any combination of them. Certain heavy weapons possibly becoming part of a wider team inventory, whether that be player (commander) assigned or first come first served is a developer decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A limit on the amount of scopes per squad would add to a certain level of realism but It'd miss my scope as a medic, it's always handy having something to check the area before you start getting everyone up.Plus, seeing as most of the maps are quite big half of the squad would be doing nothing whilst only few can engage in areas like open deserts.The way I'd like to see it is that the squad itself must find a balance on how many scopes and how many red dot sights/iron sights/etc. it takes. The scopes can be designed (if they haven't been already) in such a way that they

are a huge handicap in close quarters scenarios (heavy blurr at the sides or perhaps like scopes in insurgency). seeing as how most maps have CQ areas, a whole squad with scopes would be useless in such environments. Therefore a squads are forced in a way to pick things other than scopes or they'll have to stay out of CQ areas (which means less firepower for the team).

 

Perhaps you could implement binoculars as a customisable option as well and put a limit per squad on it just like the scopes. That way those who don't have a scope can still be of use in long range maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A limit on the amount of scopes per squad would add to a certain level of realism but It'd miss my scope as a medic, it's always handy having something to check the area before you start getting everyone up.Plus, seeing as most of the maps are quite big half of the squad would be doing nothing whilst only few can engage in areas like open deserts.The way I'd like to see it is that the squad itself must find a balance on how many scopes and how many red dot sights/iron sights/etc. it takes. The scopes can be designed (if they haven't been already) in such a way that they

are a huge handicap in close quarters scenarios (heavy blurr at the sides or perhaps like scopes in insurgency). seeing as how most maps have CQ areas, a whole squad with scopes would be useless in such environments. Therefore a squads are forced in a way to pick things other than scopes or they'll have to stay out of CQ areas (which means less firepower for the team).

 

Perhaps you could implement binoculars as a customisable option as well and put a limit per squad on it just like the scopes. That way those who don't have a scope can still be of use in long range maps.

 

A lot of scopes were given back-up close quarters sights in 1.0, one feature I really did like.

Just because you don't have a scope doesn't mean you can't engage at range, what do you think they did in WW2? Sure, it might not be as accurate overall, but that's a good thing, it makes the firefights last longer in more open areas, rather than entire squads being cut down in a matter of seconds. The fact of the matter is scopes are a lot more powerful in games when compared to real life, because even at distances of 300m you still have a better sense of what you're aiming at compared to trying to line up the 5 pixels that make up the profile of an enemy at that distance, with your front sight or reticle. As I stated at another point I'd be fully in favour of omitting scopes. As for why, Dslyecxi puts it in much better words than I could - While this is about ArmA, a lot of the points still apply to videogames in general:

http://blog.dslyecxi.com/post/30160048274/im-sure-a-lot-of-folk-have-noticed-that-shacktac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A lot of scopes were given back-up close quarters sights in 1.0, one feature I really did like.

Just because you don't have a scope doesn't mean you can't engage at range, what do you think they did in WW2? Sure, it might not be as accurate overall, but that's a good thing, it makes the firefights last longer in more open areas, rather than entire squads being cut down in a matter of seconds. The fact of the matter is scopes are a lot more powerful in games when compared to real life, because even at distances of 300m you still have a better sense of what you're aiming at compared to trying to line up the 5 pixels that make up the profile of an enemy at that distance, with your front sight or reticle. As I stated at another point I'd be fully in favour of omitting scopes. As for why, Dslyecxi puts it in much better words than I could - While this is about ArmA, a lot of the points still apply to videogames in general:

http://blog.dslyecxi.com/post/30160048274/im-sure-a-lot-of-folk-have-noticed-that-shacktac

 

Agreed, you still can engage at long range withouth a scope but sometimes it's better to conserve ammo instead of shooting in the hope of hitting. And I can't be sure of it until I've played the game myself but for all we know the new engine might make it easier to spot at distances (better render distances).It was just my two cents on the matter. I don't dislike the idea of scope limits, I'm just expressing my concern on the balance of all things as in having a scope equals being OP or something.

 

On Project Reality not having a scope is a huge disadvantage to me, you can spot at long range but it isn't easy due to limitations of render limitations and lighting/contrast (or whatever technical thing it is, don't know for sure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now the render distances are infinite. well.. when i say infinite i mean as far as you could see until the player is a single pixel or two. 

 

We do have some ambient environment "fog" more like humidity distance distortion but it doesnt really overwhelm the scene until 2km or more. 

 

And I can't be sure of it until I've played the game myself but for all we know the new engine might make it easier to spot at distances (better render distances).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I somehow think loadouts should be modified acording to what you encounter in-game. For instance if a squad is about to assault and entreched position or a bunker, it should allow its members to carry more granades at the cost of mags/esp. equipement/etc. That could perfectly fit with the idea of "materials" and limited resources of a few topics down; since resources are limited, you are not going to be spaming explosives all the time, you would need to retreat your squad to FOBs/main bases, to rearm your depleted resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I'm going to say weapon customization is a bad idea. Let the devs set up a standard of weapons that can be edited slightly as I think too much weapon customization brings imbalance into the game like BF or COD. Now if the customization are just for visual coolness then I'm ok with it, but if this edits the velocity, distance, or anything else of how a weapon reacts I say no. 

 

For character customization I would like to see engineers have certain badges and equipment they would have and this goes for riflemen, snipers, and officers. The biggest thing for me is being able to pick the race of a character as I would like to select a char that looks like me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the real life, soldiers can buy and customize their weapons ?

This. The thing I love most about PR is that it issues the standard service rifle to almost every player, which is realistic for a platoon of infantry or mechanised infantry. You let people "customise" their guns, and you're in the spec-ops tier, which this game isnt about.

 

As for movement speed, I think the reasonable thing, is to have a uniform base movement speed for all soldiers of regular armies and a slightly higher base speed for all the "irregulars", who are usually more lightly equiped.

 

And as for weight, I think it the difference should only be in sprint stamina, as it wont affect unit cohesion much since a squad isnt supposed to be sprinting anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now