1. Want to get our most recent announcements - and XP codes - in your email?

    Sign up for our mailing list!

Suggestion Wasted Overhaul Suggestion

Discussion in 'Wasted' started by ColonolKAITO, Oct 11, 2015.

Suggestion - Wasted Overhaul Suggestion

Do you think this suggestion is good?

Yes 6 vote(s) 66.7%
Needs work (specified in response) 2 vote(s) 22.2%
No 1 vote(s) 11.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ColonolKAITO Obsidian

    Alright, so as you may all know, the current iteration of Wasted is something that only works with large amounts of people working together. As it stands, however, Wasted servers are holding nowhere near the number of concurrent players they were in the first 1-2 months of its release. It's been getting a bit better recently, but without major changes, Wasted may very well die out as a game mode. So how do we fix it?

    Our first option is to simply overhaul the entire game. In this scenario, the core mechanics of the game are deemed unfit for further service and are completely revamped to fit a new kind of Wasted; one which functions according to new mechanics and has a completely different player experience. This game mode may include hefty modifications to the current Wasted framework, but may also involve many of the previous features, even expanding upon and developing from these features. An overhaul such as this would call for a new or heavily updated map, and may also call for a new texture pack to be created to give the players a more immersive experience.

    The other option that presents itself is to simply perform small updates here and there to patch up the Wasted framework. New missions added every month or so, certain weapons and armor reworked, additions of new weapons, vehicles, and armors every month or so to keep the game fresh. This option could also make use of an ever expanding map, updating the map to be larger by extending it in a certain direction by about 1000 blocks or so, revealing new towns and terrain to explore and conquer. This map update could be carried out twice a year, and would come alongside major weapon and vehicle updates. Perhaps an underground section of the map may open itself in certain locations?

    Personally, I feel as if the first option would bring more life into the game than the second option, but I still feel that both options have their merits and downfalls. Firstly, although the first option promises a new and fresh player experience, it will take a long time to develop if things are brought up from scratch. Additionally, considering the work needed to overhaul everything and to still deliver updates to other major gamemodes on the network, it would be safe to assume that either updates across the server may slow down, or that a crew of developers be designated specifically for Wasted: something along the lines of setting aside an admin as "Head Wasted Admin" and hiring new staff (or recruiting players to help out behind the scenes) as part of the task force. With the second option, a possibility exists for gaining more player interest over a longer period of time, but requires a large commitment and dedication by admins in order to fully deliver on each of the periodic updates.

    What I'm thinking is somewhere along the lines of turning Wasted into a more team-oriented game. I'll be using Planetside 2 as my model for many of the changes I'd like to suggest. Firstly, consider the current "end-game" of the current Wasted game: there really is none. There are objectives, and there is a kill counter, but in the end that's all there is. Your team is essentially given a set amount of time to get the most amount of kills across the server, and the missions only exist as ways to get good gear for your team. Even then, the "team" mechanics are really nothing more than a chat channel and a "friendly fire" setting. There is no incentive to work with your team over a small group of friends, leading to a game where the only reason to play is if you and your friends enjoy it: playing solo becomes a futile effort. How do we fix the team mechanics? We add in an ACTUAL objective: controlling the map.

    See, it goes like this. Each city represents a major territory on the map, and there are smaller "sub-stations" located throughout the map as well. Teams compete to control these locations, but can only take over the locations on the edge of their territory (any territory not bordered by an enemy controlled territory is unable to be captured). Planetside 2 shows this mechanic to work quite well, as taking over each area becomes a battle between teams, and battles can reach massive scales very quickly if teams are working to capture the same outpost at the same time. Holding minor territories may give small bonuses (spawning with a small amount of ammo, or slightly more food) whereas holding major outposts can make the difference between success and failure (a large outpost may provide a basic primary weapon upon spawn, or confers an additional inventory slot for storage). Teams would start out with the same number of outposts as every other team, and the time limit of 4-5 hours would set the teams into motion. Small rewards could be given to any team who successfully takes over a given outpost, and a larger reward could be given to the team who captured a major outpost.

    Each team would receive one major outpost as their headquarters (this is a set, uncapturable location), and a certain number of starting territories (again, these are set from the beginning, and aren't random). Each team member is given a set amount of vehicle spawns per hour, and cannot spawn another vehicle until their previous vehicle is destroyed (vehicles automatically are destroyed after 20 minutes of idle time. More on vehicles later). Whichever team holds the largest portion of the map at the end of the session is declared the winner, and the server is reset.

    Missions could still be implemented in the form of "objective capture" missions. Essentially, teams would be asked to capture a specific territory in return for a limited boost to that team's members (global speed 1 buff, global protection or resist 1 buff, etc). Mechs could be included in the game as outpost defenders, limited to staying within an outpost's territory borders as a controllable sentry with reduced health and a long respawn timer, giving a defending team something to use in the fight against enemies trying to capture an outpost. Teams assaulting an outpost would be able to assault from any direction, and would have to work as a team to take down the outpost effectively.

    Vehicle suggestions:
    1. Truck --> Troop transport. This would function as a mobile spawner for a team, and would have to be deployed in order to spawn anyone. While deployed, the transport cannot move and has slightly increased health. By clicking on the transport, troops are able to change classes on the go (more on classes later).
    2. Car --> Humvee. The car would function as a mobile transport for one person, and any damage taken by the rider of the vehicle would be transferred to the Humvee itself. A Humvee is meant for getting troops around quickly, but doesn't give much function besides quick transport.
    3. ATV --> Quad. The quad would focus on off-terrain movement, and wouldn't provide any protection for the driver of the vehicle. It moves quickly and can go over hills well, but isn't as fast as the Humvee on the ground. The quad can be manned by 2 people, with one facing forward as a driver, and the other facing backwards as a gunner (the gunner has a machine gun with limited ammo and a decent clip size, but focuses on anti-vehicle damage instead of anti-infantry damage).
    4. Motorcycle --> Roadster. The Roadster doesn't provide much, but is faster than the Humvee in streets, and can corner extremely well. It has low durability and provides no protection for the driver, but is useful as a quick recon vehicle.
    5. Addition: Tank. The tank is a vehicle with high durability and slow movement, and cannot corner well. The tank has a cannon that fires an explosive shot (radius 4 blocks, no block damage), but has a long reload time (5-8 seconds). The tank also cannot turn its turret very well, so it isn't an impossible foe to face with proper planning and support. The tank also has a gunner mount, but the gunner is not protected from any damage, whereas the driver of the tank IS protected from direct damage.
    (Getting in vehicles is simple. If you are not a gunner, your avatar does not appear, but your name is displayed above the vehicle. Gunners are shown as riding the vehicle).
    Class Rework suggestions:
    1. Engineer --> Combat Engineer. The combat engineer can resupply ammunition to nearby allies once every 10 minutes (no more than half a stack of ammo at a time), and can repair vehicles. The engineer can also perform upgrades on certain vehicles (giving them more health, a gunner mount, or faster movement or cornering), but this upgrade function is once per vehicle, with a cooldown time of 30 minutes.
    2. Mechanic --> Merged with combat engineer.
    3. Medic --> Combat medic. The combat medic is able to revive dead teammates, and heal injured ones. The medic has reduced health, but can provide large bonuses and healing to any team, and is essential to a good battle.
    4. Navigator --> Merge with Scout.
    5. Scout --> Ranger. The ranger is in charge of reconnaissance, and can move quicker than any other class on their feet (speed 1 buff). They have reduced health, but have increased stamina and lower visibility, making them adept at scouting out locations or slipping past enemy positions unnoticed.
    6. SpecOps --> Specialist. The specialist is a unique class, capable of turning enemy defenses to your side. Enemy turrets and mechs can be hacked by the specialist, temporarily turning them to your side. This hack only lasts a few minutes, and takes a few seconds to execute, so the specialist should be backed up by friendly soldiers to guarantee a successful hack.
    7. Squad Leader --> Assault. The assault class deals more damage with explosives, and can carry more ammunition than any other class. Assault troopers move slower than other troopers due to their gear, however, and are incapable of going "full rambo" against an enemy squad, and should be backed up by other team members.
    Basic Mechanics: Teams are capable of working together using the new "squad system". This system allows players to form chat channels with other players, making a squad of up to 10 people. Squad leaders can communicate with other squad leaders in a specific chat-log (separate from team chat), and are essential to keeping a squad running. Squad leaders must communicate with their squad mates, and must cooperate with other leaders to stage assaults on key areas of the map.

    Every soldier spawns with a map in their hotbar. Holding a map shows a dynamic map of the battlefield, displaying current location and territory statuses, giving each soldier an idea which installations should be captured and how their team is doing at any given time. Territory possession is shown by highlighting the territory as the color of the team controlling it.
    A new map would be needed (and the old one really needs an update anyways), and several items would be reworked to fit the new mechanics. I can elaborate on any more information desired if asked, and i'd love to hear what you guys think about this whole thing. Please, let me know.
    Shoutout to RoberttheGoat for inspiring me to finally write this all down last night (this one's for you).

  2. NobleJury Gold

    The biggest problem with this (besides dev time to code it all) is that making a game more team-oriented discourages people who don't have friends/a clan from playing it. I could see this going over either way, but I would love to see at least some of these mechanics implemented. I've tried Wasted a few times and mostly it feels like total domination by a few loners, and then everyone else milling around and killing each other. If an organized squad had a better chance of taking out even the most decked out person, it would probably improve the game as a whole.

    (take everything I said with a grain of salt as I probably have less than 15 hours on Wasted)
    DaFunk, Cahillguy and FearTheRainbow like this.
  3. FearTheRainbow Platinum

    I like the point of the idea, but I think that the game should not be placed just into team-work.Like NobleJury said some of the players that don't have many friends in the game or just don't like playing with other players might not play a lot anymore or just not want to play.What I think the key to making wasted better is team work as well, but it must be balanced to fit all player needs.That being said I think you have the right idea but it needs to be shaped.I have only played wasted for a year and if it was not for Purplepugs (NextFriday) teaching me how to play I would be one of the lost players that would not have that much player-base knowledge and game skill and that is why I think team work is important but its still needs to be equal with independent players.
  4. Cahillguy Regular Member

    Holy crap, I've been thinking the exact same thing when Wasted should be overhauled to become like Planetside 2 - except that a team can actually win a game (no matter how long it takes). I haven't bothered writing something like this, so thank you for publishing this idea!

    Now, for my personal input. 100 players, or even 150, is nowhere near enough for players to enjoy a massive war. In Planetside 2, there's a maximum of 2000 players on a server (so 500 per continent). While I don't think we'd be able to handle 500 players at a time, there should at least be 240 players as the maximum per Wasted server, so there will be 4 teams (as we do right now), 60 players per team, and 5 squads per team (I think there should be 12 to a squad like PS2; if not, then 6 squads per team). Obviously, the more, the merrier!

    Capture mechanics should work like this: towns should be capturable via a lattice system like PS2 (only along certain capture lines, which should be flexible though). Each town would list the team that owns it, and would have different statuses - 'Safe' (not capturable by any enemy team), 'Vulnerable to [Team]' (can be up to three teams that can capture it), 'Invasion by [Team]' (also up to three teams), 'Locked Down to [Team]' (depending on whoever loses). With the HQ, I think it should eventually be capturable - but only after it is the only base left that the team has, and this is where Mechs should only be available (defender's advantage, after all, since they can deploy turrets and other buildings in a base before invaders can).

    As for the vehicles: I don't think we'd have the luxury of copying PS2's Sundee system by having the Truck as a mobile spawnpoint. This is because of the player count - zerging towns/outposts with 48+ soldiers is a viable strategy in PS2, but we simply won't have the numbers like PS2. Because there'll be fewer players, combined arms (like PS2) will not be such a big element in Wasted - this is essential to capturing bases in PS2, as it counters the defender's advantage. Instead, I suggest that when a Truck is deployed at a town, it should be invincible, and will start a countdown (e.g. 20 minutes). This is how long the attackers have to take the town; if the defenders successfully hold them off for that long, the town's status changes from 'Invasion by [Team]' to 'Locked Down to [Team]' (and 'Vulnerable to [Team] if applicable).

    During the invasion, the attackers can respawn at semi-random locations on the outskirts of the outpost at first (depending on which side they attack from). However, it should only be the squad that owns the Truck that can spawn in (more trucks that belong to different squads = more squads able to respawn). Meanwhile, the defenders spawn within the outpost's buildings randomly (to prevent spawncamping). Both sides can deploy buildings as they wish; attackers can bring buildings via their truck. For the attackers to win, they must control certain points in the outpost, and must hold a majority of them for a shorter amount of time. For example, if there are 3 points, and attackers control 2 points, they most hold this for 7 minutes. If they hold all 3, they only have to hold for three minutes (minus the time they have already held the other points). As the time ticks, this increases the time that the defenders must defend for, so if the defenders regain the majority, they still have to fight hard. Once the attackers control a point, they can then spawn around it instead of outside the town.

    Also, there can be multiple invading teams at a time. As before, if the defenders hold at least 2 out of 3, the clock ticks for their lock down. If, say, there are 2 invading teams and all 3 teams hold 1 point, the clock ticks for the invaders combined (the 7 minutes as before). This will make the defenders being pushed out more likely; if they do successfully hold the town, good on them! If they are pushed out, then the team that controls the majority of points at the end will win (e.g. 2 out of 3, the other team only 1). However, if they both controlled the same number (defenders still controlled points when they lost), then it goes into sudden death - the defenders' point becomes neutral, and whoever captures this and holds for a really short time period (e.g. 1 minute), they win, with the town being 'Locked Down to [losing team]'.

    This probably seems complicated, so if you want me to explain it better, or criticize (constructively), feel free to tell me!
  5. ColonolKAITO Obsidian

    I've been feeling the same way about the capture idea, and I like the idea with the timed truck spawner. To make it easier for people to spawn, should the respawn point feature a map on the wall showing current respawn locations and held territories? The spawn locations would be any locations currently under attack by your team, or any locations that were currently being attacked which your team has control over.

    Respawn timer of 10 seconds to prevent spamming of reinforcements?

    Concerning the whole capture time system, I think it should be held via zones, sort of how the flags in Wasted: Control are captured. Team members near an enemy flag begin to capture it, and more team members means a quicker capture. People whose flag is being captured are notified that their zone is under attack (restricted to people in spawn room and people one zone away from the flag). Most smaller zones would only need 1-2 flag points, but larger zones would need 3 or 4 to make it work effectively.

    I do like the idea of mechs being available only at the team HQ, but I feel like at least one should be available from the defending team at every major city on the map. This gives a built in countermeasure against enemy tanks, which would balance out the metagame quite nicely when it concerns tanks v mechs. If mechs were only available in the HQ of each team, then tanks would quickly become the go-to vehicle for capturing cities, which may lead to a contest of which team had more engineer upgraded tanks in a city at any given time.

    I understand what you guys are saying, and I get the feeling. Several Wasted players are solo players, and many people enjoy playing solo. However, in a game where the only team mechanics are a kill-counter and a friendly-fire screen, there really isn't any reason to work as a team. Additionally, even though the old Wasted may have been more of a solo game for some people, a game with improved mechanics such as this would certainly change the way that people view the gamemode. If updates as major as these were implemented, Wasted would almost transform into a completely new gamemode, save for the full gun and partial vehicle mechanics that were already in the game. Take a gamemode such as MineZ, for instance. Before MineZ had as big a map as it does now, it was a small map on a small server, where players could often work solo to get just as far as any players working in a party or large group. However, as the map became bigger and as changes were implemented into the core gameplay mechanics, it became increasingly important to work with team members to get to the more challenging dungeons, and the more impactful rewards (Byesford, etc). Even though people can still play solo in the current iteration of MineZ, it's generally more enjoyable to play with at least one other person, and a group of even two people can get much farther than a single player in most cases. It would be the same way in New Wasted: Players could certainly go solo and work to contribute to the overall team effort by capturing objectives alone, or by acting as an assassin and killing enemy players by roaming the map, but by working with a team, that player's effectiveness would skyrocket. Instead of picking off random targets or zones, the player would instead be cooperating with one or two more people, which would increase overall effectiveness of the player by quite a decent amount.

    I get that some people enjoy playing Wasted solo (myself included), but I feel like a game that went through the trouble of including teams instead of just making it a free-for-all roaming gamemode should at least utilize the team mechanics more fully if they are to be retained.
    Cahillguy, FearTheRainbow and DaFunk like this.
  6. HypeTrains Mini Builder

    Sorry, but I completely disagree with your idea about the map. We shouldn't make a map bigger to have players more than 1000 blocks apart. We need a smaller and completely new map. Maybe two small islands with three towns each connected by two bridges and a subway so you can't camp the only way over? With this I think we should add boats or something. And DON'T HAVE MASSIVE CLIFFS NEXT TO THE OCEAN AND ADD ACTUAL BEACHES!!!!!
    KoenigApfel likes this.
  7. ColonolKAITO Obsidian

    To be fair, I never really said that the map should be much bigger than it currently is. I simply stated that a reworking of the map, or even a new map of roughly the same size would be sufficient for the increased amount of players in any given game.

    Consider this: A small map with 400 players will end in chaos. Even Annihilation maps are decently large on their own, and they only have to support a maximum of 120 players at any time; often times much less than this. If the Wasted map were to decrease in size and have an increase in player population per server, the games would quickly become overcrowded. Taking into account the numerous methods of transportation and spawn-mechanic reworkings that have been put forth, it wouldn't be difficult for a player to find where they need to go, even on a map as big as the current Wasted map.

    Of course, this also assumes that these games will draw a large enough crowd to justify the large map.
    Cahillguy likes this.
  8. Cahillguy Regular Member

    With the spawn lobby, I definitely agree about a map on the wall; it should be large enough to scale the map (e.g. 40x40). Then, on a green background (for land), there should be colored wool corresponding to the team that owns the outpost, as well a sign on top for the town's name. However, if it is being attacked, it should be a lighter shade of the team's color. Here's my examples below:
    Power Rangers attacked Team Cobra attacked
    (BLACK Nightmare) Nightmare attacked Initiative 1 attacked

    As you can see though, Team Cobra and Initiative 1 have similar colors, so they should be changed to prevent confusion. Also, if you cannot spawn at a certain town, it should dictate the reason in the chat. Here are a few examples:
    Cannot attack this base, your team does not control an adjacent base!
    Cannot spawn here, your squad must have a deployed truck in this base! (When the team does control an adjacent base)
    Cannot attack this base, this is locked down to your team! (After getting locked down)
    You must wait at least 10 seconds before respawning! (Or however many seconds as appropriate)
    Cannot spawn here, your team does not control this point! (Points within the base, explained below)

    A problem here is that a single wool block is not enough to dictate the spawn within that town. My idea is that on clicking e.g. City 17, you get taken to another mini-lobby that shows another smaller, to-scale map, with the same idea - colored wool blocks that become lighter when attacked, and the sign saying the point's name. We can go with either vague letters (A, B, C), or more specific ones (e.g. Hospital, Plaza, Crane), and there must be ones saying 'Outskirts' (invaders only), and 'Random' (defenders only, mostly to be used when all points are held by invaders). The relevant mini-lobby should be where the dead are teleported to after dying, if they are participating in the battle for that base. There should also be another sign labelled 'Back to Main Map', which teleports them back to the main lobby.

    My last few touch-ups include the following: When spawning in, this is the message that should be displayed in chat (no more annoying 'Derby' 'Derby' messages that take up the whole chat!): You have spawned in City 17 at the Hospital! (Replace City 17 with the outpost and Hospital with the point, of course.)

    As for number of points in a base, it is best to keep it at odd numbers (1,3, 5), if we were to go with the timed invasions. This is because e.g. if there were 4 points, the invaders must hold 3 out of 4 points just to have the clock tick for them. Even if we made it so that the timer wouldn't tick for any team if they both held the same number of points (2 and 2), this will result in prolonged battles. If a team does manage to regain the majority, it would be easy to even it out again since the minority team can target 1 point in particular, while defending their last point. This can then go on and on, unless one team has far more players in the battle than the other.
    I agree with your first paragraph, except like I said, I think it would be best to keep the number of points at an odd number (feel free to debate this). With the size of each point's area, a rough guideline should be that it covers around 12x12x6 (length, width, height) blocks, taking into account the size and shape of the structure/surroundings of the point (e.g. a circular building, an open plaza). The reason why it should not just be ~4 blocks adjacent to the flag is so that the capturers are not just sitting ducks near it; they should be able to use the environment to their advantage.

    I also agree with mechs being available at major cities, simply because they should require more effort to capture. You mentioned "upgraded tanks"; should we implement a progression system (in terms of vehicles) for this new Wasted? There are pros and cons for this; to limit the downsides, we must make sure that earnable items must be sidegrades. The folly of having direct upgrades (e.g. OMG 20% more health to the tank!!1!1!!1) is that those that play Wasted more often will inevitable end up with better equipment than those who don't, especially the new players wanting to get into another gamemode. They will then complain about the OP upgrades, driving them away, and harming Wasted's player retention - this is the problem that Wasted Sandbox had, and we will certainly not want to repeat this.
  9. ColonolKAITO Obsidian


    With the whole 'lobby spawn points" thing, I don't think there should be more specific points other than the deployment trucks and the cities themselves. Giving specific spawn points in the city could lead to spawn camping, which completely ruins the point of the game (although the same argument could be made concerning spawn trucks). I think the idea would be better served if the spawn points stayed as they are (format wise), so that the map which displays all the information about which zones are being held or attacked is on the wall, but the city spawn points are on the wall, somewhat like they are now. Available spawn points (those inside of your own city) display: Spawn Available! while the spawn points that are under attack feature an additional line of text beneath this one: Point is under attack! . This way, the cities which are available to spawn in are laid out in a linear fashion, and a player can easily see which of their held points is under attack at any given time.

    Concerning selecting a spawn truck as a spawn point, I feel like this is a complicated issue. Since the possibility exists of having a large amount of these trucks around the map at the same time, it'd become troublesome to keep the signs constantly updating to show every possible spawn truck. So, here's a solution: On the bottom of every sign for spawning, the text Spawn Truck: Active can be displayed to show that there is a spawn truck deployed within the zone that the player wants to spawn in. If a friendly spawn truck is deployed in a friendly location, clicking the spawn sign gives the player a prompt option: Spawn in city or at deployment point? If multiple spawn trucks are within any one zone, the players will spawn at one of these trucks, but the specific truck they spawn at is left to random chance. Say there were two trucks in one zone: a player spawning in that zone would have a 50% chance to spawn at one truck, and a 50% chance to spawn at another. Keeping the spawn points like this would maybe be a bit more player friendly, especially to newcomers.

    When I refer to the upgrades for vehicles, I mean linear upgrades to a certain system. Each vehicle would hold a spot for one upgrade, and no more than one upgrade may be equipped to any vehicle at any given time. For example, a common upgrade to tanks may be increased turret turn-speed, a gunner-turret upgrade, or perhaps even gunner's shielding, which would transfer part of the gunner's damage to the tank itself. For something like a Humvee, the upgrade may be faster movement, or even equipping a basic turret to the vehicle. These upgrades would be influential on the gameplay, but they wouldn't really be all too powerful if the enemy team is prepared.

    Having the upgrades be based off of which zones your team holds also sounds like an interesting idea. Say, for instance, your team can't upgrade a tank with a better turret unless they hold a certain zone; one which they lost. If they want to upgrade their tank, they need to capture the zone. Distributing upgrade privileges to certain town bonuses would make the game extremely anti-pay to win. If these upgrades were available through xp only, then it would become a contest of who could spend more on the game to get better upgrades. However, it should also be noted that the engineer class still needs to be used to upgrade the vehicle in the first place.

    I have an idea for upgrading weapons as well (better firerate, bigger clip size, etc), but I can't quite get a grasp on the fundamentals of it yet. I'd like it to be a sort of crafting system where zone-capture rewards spawn in chests within the zone (in the main spawn building for instance), and a limited number of weapon upgrades become available. By combining your weapon with an item called (scope), crouching with the weapon in hand creates a "zoom" feature, sort of like how the old sniper on annihilation could zoom by crouching with the bow in hand. The chests would spawn randomly throughout the spawn building, and would vary in number based off of how many people no your team were within the zone a the time the zone was captured. This way, people aren't just camping the same spot and waiting for a couple of chests to spawn. Additionally, the same upgrade policy applies to weapons: only one upgrade per weapon. This forces players to find a play-style that suits them, instead of just camping for equipment and making a PKP with every upgrade.

    I'm writing this before class in the morning so things may seem a little jumbled; just ask me for clarification on anything if it isn't clear.
    Cahillguy likes this.
  10. HypeTrains Mini Builder

    I don't think we will get much more than 64 players if we get this overhaul done, so the map right now would be too big anyways.
  11. ColonolKAITO Obsidian

    Fair enough. A smaller map may serve the purpose of this gamemode better than a larger map.

    Depends on how much support the idea gets I suppose
  12. Cahillguy Regular Member

    Concerning the "specific spawn points in the city", this shouldn't really be the case. Continuing from my suggestion, when someone selects a point e.g. Hospital, they'll spawn in a somewhat random place near the point, instead of a dedicated spawn room like PS2. This avoids spawncamping (unless they can only code in specific spawnpoints, in which case, they should add as many as possible). As for cities being "laid out in a linear fashion" at spawn, I hold the opinion that a woolmap on the lobby wall would help put the island people are fighting for into perspective, so that they don't always need to have a map up on a separate window. This will allow squad leaders to choose a base that borders an enemy base, so that they'll be able to have their squads attack/defend without having to travel extreme distances. After all, visual images have a bigger impact than just text (e.g. a lighter team color denoting that a city is currently being contested, instead of having to fill the chat stating so). This is especially important in making new players have a seamless Wasted experience.
    I guess this is covered above; whichever one we go with, I do agree with a sign beneath each base's wool/sign stating "Spawn Truck: Active". Also, trucks should only be deployed in attackable enemy bases. Here are three 'error' messages if they try to deploy anywhere else:
    Cannot deploy your truck here, your team does not control an adjacent base!
    You cannot deploy your truck in an allied base!
    You can only deploy your truck at an enemy base that borders an allied base! (when trying to deploy in the middle of nowhere)

    Another possible spawning system could be spawning in on squad members (like normal BF4), or squad leaders exclusively (like hardcore BF4). This encourages teamwork in the sense that it is in your best interests to survive, as well as deciding whether it is worth it to risk capturing a point, or to stay in a safe spot and wait for squadmates to back you up. To spawn with this system, simply type in "/spawn sl" to spawn in on the squad leader. To spawn in on a certain person, type "/spawn [name]". The obvious problem here is really long/similar names; this can be remedied by having the side HUD list the squad name (e.g. Charlie), and the squad members' names below assigned to a number (squad leader as first, in a special color, with everyone else 2-12). Then, they can use "/spawn [number]", which is much more convenient. If someone just types "/spawn sq", then they spawn in on a random squad member.

    The bold suggestion should be implemented nonetheless so everyone knows who their squadmates are! Here's an example HUD:
    Charlie Squad

    1) [Alive Squad Leader] [Dead Squad Leader]
    2) [Alive squad member]
    3) [Dead squad member]
    etc. up to however many people in the squad
    Now this, I can get behind. In my opinion, a permanent upgrade system (based on XP purchases) has the potential to completely destroy a game's balance, even if it is just a 10% damage upgrade. Your idea of a temporary, in-game upgrade system is certainly much more interesting by basing it off of controlled areas (like PS2). Although, at the same time, I'm thinking of having area control contribute to team resources that can be used to purchase vehicles/deployable buildings, while a player's personal contribution (i.e. score/money from killing and capturing/defending objectives) can be used to purchase upgrades for the round only. This encourages players to stick around for a long time, while still only making a small difference on their performance (i.e. not OP!).
    This begs the question: How should people obtain weapons in the first place? Because the old system where everyone has to get a random weapon from chests to be able to fight is unsuitable for this new, team-based Wasted. Maybe we might need to revamp the weapons as a whole, where each weapon is a sidegrade. Instead of having a hierarchy for weapons (i.e. PKP > M240 > M249), each weapon would have certain strengths and weaknesses to them (maybe PKP has a ton of recoil while being hard-hitting, M240 being balanced, M249 having lots of recoil but highest rate of fire). Then, each class would have a starting weapon, which would be the most balanced one. People can then spend XP unlocking guns that are sidegrades for their class (Assault class having assault rifles as a primary, Support class having LMGs as a primary). Or, we can have players unlock them in-game with their in-game money/score (as I mentioned before). Either way, purchasing upgrades (like the scope you said, maybe laser sights, silencers, larger mag sizes etc.) should be purchasable with this in-game money, which they can then use to augment their weapon by crafting the two items together.
    This reminds me of thing I forgot to say in my previous post: While the spawn message is simple (You have spawned in [Base] at [Point]!), there should also be no spawn blindness/nausea. After all, the spawncamper already has the advantage. If anything, the newspawn could have a faster speed for 2 seconds to counter this (not such an important thing to add though).
  13. ColonolKAITO Obsidian


    I agree with pretty much everything here, although I think you may be misunderstanding what I mean with the whole spawn point thing. When I say "linear spawn points", think of how it is now. I still want the map to be implemented in the spawn lobby so that people can see the current status of the map, and they can mouse over it to see what territory is what. Spawning by clicking on the map is a great idea, but to do this the representative map in the lobby has to be a pretty decent size, considering the detail that needs to go into it.

    My spawn suggestion goes something like this: The map is still there, and people can still see what cities are where, but the spawn signs still stay along the wall. Above or below the sign, a block of wool signifying the team color is shown (light blue wool for cobra, etc), while the status of the city (under attack, secure, etc) is shown on the sign itself. People can still use the map effectively this way, but this method makes the spawn system a bit more familiar for players, and may even end up being more effective. Although I can't really say for certain.

    With the weapons system revamp, i completely agree. Shotbow XP should be used to purchase different weapons, and shotbow xp shouldn't be a rare commodity in the game. XP for capturing and defending points, XP for kills, etc. The weapons bought shouldn't be direct upgrades from other weapons in the game, but should instead have their advantages and disadvantages according to the type of gun that is being used. Hell, we could take it a step further and make every team a separate faction with different advantages and disadvantages to their weaponry, although I imagine that a factioned system of weapons would over saturate the game with content.

    Weapons are pretty much available from the spawn kit, and can't be dropped. This means that people can't just pick up a better weapon and ignore their spawn kit; it means that people have to work with what they have in order to get better at the game. Of course, the different classes may have different weapon restrictions (shotgun can't be used by specialist, etc), but for the most part weapons are pretty much available to anyone who puts time into the game. Double XP weekends or certain events throughout the map could help give players XP for weapons, but that's up to the admins.
    Cahillguy likes this.
  14. kyogyu Regular Member

    Tanks should be given anti-tank shells to counter other tanks and mechs. Mechs are a pain to deal with, even if you have rocket launchers.
  15. ColonolKAITO Obsidian

    The tank's default cannon is antiarmor in the first place. The debris it makes is what makes a tank shell effective against infantry.

    The slow reload speed and the slow turnrate on the cannon itself is why the tank requires a gunner seat.

    Another alternative is to give tanks two types of ammunition as part of the upgrade system: HE and AP. HE shells do more damage to infantry and terrain, while AP shells do more damage to vehicles and armor, with less overall terrain damage.
  16. ramon_1999 Regular Member

    You can take out a mech with one rocket... its not easy, but yea, it isnt easy to get a mech aswell...
  17. Robertthegoat Developer

    Locking this post, as the discussion has been carried to newer threads - this one will remain readable for future review during planning.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page