You missed your chance of participating in the online experiment that is Team Fortress 2? Don't despair, as Valve, being the good company that we learned to love so much, will give a free week-end to test drive its funny FPS on the PC. All the details inside.

Commented on 2008-05-01 00:37:17

I already own the PC version, but don't have it installed right now. Can any PC version player speak to the new medic weapons and if they see any potential balance issues? I mean, imagine if they added new weapons to Halo 3, or new ways of configuring your setup in COD4?

On a side note, the last time I played it on 360, at first I was worried. I kept refreshing the servers and it said there was none. I had to exit the TF2 part of Orange Box and reload it, then I saw the typical dozens of active servers. Just a note to 360 players, it may require more than even a few refreshes, if you don't see any servers exit the game and restart. I'm actually amazed that there are still as many people playing as there are with bugs like that.

In reply to

DarkElfa

Commented on 2008-05-01 01:25:22

I have all 3 new weapons unlocked thanks to an exploit that Valve didn't patch. It doesn't really unbalance anything at all. What it does do is make people waste the uber crit. The ubersaw makes you ballsier with the saw, but it doesn't unbalance anything.

In reply to

Jigen

Commented on 2008-05-01 01:36:54 In reply to DarkElfa

Posted by DarkElfa

I have all 3 new weapons unlocked thanks to an exploit that Valve didn't patch. It doesn't really unbalance anything at all. What it does do is make people waste the uber crit. The ubersaw makes you ballsier with the saw, but it doesn't unbalance anything.

How doesn't it unbalance at all? You change even the slightest thing in any MP game and you're going to be changing the balance. Or are you just saying the new weapons are completely useless and noone will use them anyways?

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2008-05-01 01:40:19

What's so difficult to understand? If adding new weapons unbalanced every game, than unlocks in a game like COD4 would inherently break the whole damn system--which thankfully isn't the case at all. If it were impossible to ever add content to an FPS without breaking the balance, most games would only come with one weapon..

Not that most games are even remotely balanced anyway. I can certainly imagine adding new perks or weapons to Call of Duty, and I will continue to hope that IW decides to do a full fledge expansion pack for the game (which they haven't done since COD1) in which they do so. Call of Duty 4's balance works out of the box for public play, but for competition play it's nonsense.. thank god for mods.

I don't know that the new weapons don't unbalance the game but it seems strange to raise the question and then tell the first person who answers it their wrong without experiencing the new system either. Many people have implied that the Medic needed this upgrade, and ultimately they're going to be adding content to the other classes as well. Hell, they've even said they might add entirely new classes to the game.

In reply to

What's so difficult to understand?  If adding new weapons unbalanced every game, than unlocks in a game like COD4 would inherently break the whole damn system--which thankfully isn't the case at all.  If it were impossible to ever add content to an FPS without breaking the balance, most games would only come with one weapon..

Not that most games are even remotely balanced anyway.  I can certainly imagine adding new perks or weapons to Call of Duty, and I will continue to hope that IW decides to do a full fledge expansion pack for the game (which they haven't done since COD1) in which they do so.  Call of Duty 4's balance works out of the box for public play, but for competition play it's nonsense.. thank god for mods.

I don't know that the new weapons don't unbalance the game but it seems strange to raise the question and then tell the first person who answers it their wrong without experiencing the new system either.  Many people have implied that the Medic [i]needed[/i] this upgrade, and ultimately they're going to be adding content to the other classes as well.  Hell, they've even said they might add entirely new classes to the game.

Jigen

Commented on 2008-05-01 01:46:54 In reply to GriftGFX

Posted by GriftGFX

What's so difficult to understand? If adding new weapons unbalanced every game, than unlocks in a game like COD4 would inherently break the whole damn system--which thankfully isn't the case at all. If it were impossible to ever add content to an FPS without breaking the balance, most games would only come with one weapon.. not that most games are even remotely balanced anyway :)

It's more complex than that. These are weapons being ADDED to an already heavily played game. It's different than adding them after the fact. I hope that Valve did tons of balance testing on the weapons before adding them to the live game, but that's also a consideration as well.

COD4 is also a poor example, the M16A is really all you need in that game. A good example of unlocks unbalancing gameplay somewhat is BF2.

Also, what you said about '1 weapon' doesn't make sense. Fighting games have multiple fighters, some of them are more balanced than others. However, it's more akin to adding fighters to SF2, like Turbo and SSF2 added. I tend to think the added characters in those were mostly underpowered too, which is the 'safe' route when messing with something that works.

So basically I'm asking for an elaborate and specific 'take' on the new medic weapons, I figure someone already typed out a good one somewhere, so if anyone sees something like that posted on a forum, link it to me please, I'd like to read it.

edit : with COD4 there are perks that do cause balance issues too though, the 3xFrag is a good one, and imagine someone starting off with Last Stand, Martyrdom, and stuff like Double Tap. Luckily the leveling up in COD4 is VERY FAST, but if you put a level 50 versus a level 1 the level 50 WOULD have an unfair advantage.

I could go for extra COD4 content too, and it's not out of the question because obviously there have been quite a few expansion packs on the consoles as well, so it's not like they'd be forced PC only with it.

In reply to

[quote=GriftGFX]What's so difficult to understand?  If adding new weapons unbalanced every game, than unlocks in a game like COD4 would inherently break the whole damn system--which thankfully isn't the case at all.  If it were impossible to ever add content to an FPS without breaking the balance, most games would only come with one weapon.. not that most games are even remotely balanced anyway :)[/quote]

It's more complex than that.  These are weapons being ADDED to an already heavily played game.  It's different than adding them after the fact.  I hope that Valve did tons of balance testing on the weapons before adding them to the live game, but that's also a consideration as well.

COD4 is also a poor example, the M16A is really all you need in that game.  A good example of unlocks unbalancing gameplay somewhat is BF2.

Also, what you said about '1 weapon' doesn't make sense.  Fighting games have multiple fighters, some of them are more balanced than others.  However, it's more akin to adding fighters to SF2, like Turbo and SSF2 added.  I tend to think the added characters in those were mostly underpowered too, which is the 'safe' route when messing with something that works.

So basically I'm asking for an elaborate and specific 'take' on the new medic weapons, I figure someone already typed out a good one somewhere, so if anyone sees something like that posted on a forum, link it to me please, I'd like to read it.

edit : with COD4 there are perks that do cause balance issues too though, the 3xFrag is a good one, and imagine someone starting off with Last Stand, Martyrdom, and stuff like Double Tap.  Luckily the leveling up in COD4 is VERY FAST, but if you put a level 50 versus a level 1 the level 50 WOULD have an unfair advantage.

I could go for extra COD4 content too, and it's not out of the question because obviously there have been quite a few expansion packs on the consoles as well, so it's not like they'd be forced PC only with it.

GriftGFX

Commented on 2008-05-01 01:52:36 In reply to Jigen

Posted by Jigen

It's more complex than that. These are weapons being ADDED to an already heavily played game. It's different than adding them after the fact. I hope that Valve did tons of balance testing on the weapons before adding them to the live game, but that's also a consideration as well.

I imagine they did loads of testing to get the balance right.. but who knows.

COD4 is also a poor example, the M16A is really all you need in that game. A good example of unlocks unbalancing gameplay somewhat is BF2.

SMG's > Assault Rifles. CQC rules COD4. I do love the M16, but you're going to be doing yourself a diservice if you don't have a certain number of MP5's (or P90's pre-mod) on your team. The rush is a powerful tactic in Call of Duty 4, and not only do the SMG classes weapons rule at the close-to-medium range combat that's so common in COD4, but the class also moves quite a bit faster too.

Oh, and BF2 is probably less balanced before the unlocks. MEC's default weapons own the USMC's for the most part. I won't claim that the unlocks are properly balanced either, but there's loads of issues in BF2's infantry design and while unlocks were pretty much globally banned in competition, it always put the USMC at a disadvantage imo.

Also, what you said about '1 weapon' doesn't make sense. Fighting games have multiple fighters, some of them are more balanced than others. However, it's more akin to adding fighters to SF2, like Turbo and SSF2 added. I tend to think the added characters in those were mostly underpowered too, which is the 'safe' route when messing with something that works.

It makes perfect sense. If you wanted a truly perfect balance in a fighting game, you'd also have one character. Nearly every fighting game ever made has established tiers and is frankly far from perfectly balanced. Some are closer to perfection than others, granted, but you're kidding yourself if you think any fighting game has gotten it dead right. The original release of SF2 is hardly perfectly tuned.

Thankfully, developers know that variety is important too.

I appreciate your concern though, I just think that Valve is probably well aware of the risks that they're taking, and hopefully they've done enough to balance the game to an acceptable level including the new content.

I think the RPG-like nature of progression you see in current FPS, which is being added into TF2 with these new items is more of a potential issue than the new content itself personally. It's easier to balance content when it's available to every player, and personally, I don't find replay value in the genre has been enhanced by this trend.. because people who love first person shooters could log hundreds of hours into their favorite games without being egged on by these sort of gimmicks.

In reply to

[quote=Jigen]It's more complex than that.  These are weapons being ADDED to an already heavily played game.  It's different than adding them after the fact.  I hope that Valve did tons of balance testing on the weapons before adding them to the live game, but that's also a consideration as well.[/quote]

I imagine they did loads of testing to get the balance right.. but who knows.

[quote]COD4 is also a poor example, the M16A is really all you need in that game. A good example of unlocks unbalancing gameplay somewhat is BF2.[/quote]

SMG's > Assault Rifles.  CQC rules COD4.  I do love the M16, but you're going to be doing yourself a diservice if you don't have a certain number of MP5's (or P90's pre-mod) on your team.  The rush is a powerful tactic in Call of Duty 4, and not only do the SMG classes weapons rule at the close-to-medium range combat that's so common in COD4, but the class also moves quite a bit faster too.

Oh, and BF2 is probably less balanced [i]before[/i] the unlocks.  MEC's default weapons own the USMC's for the most part.  I won't claim that the unlocks are properly balanced either, but there's loads of issues in BF2's infantry design and while unlocks were pretty much globally banned in competition, it always put the USMC at a disadvantage imo.

[quote]Also, what you said about '1 weapon' doesn't make sense.  Fighting games have multiple fighters, some of them are more balanced than others.  However, it's more akin to adding fighters to SF2, like Turbo and SSF2 added.  I tend to think the added characters in those were mostly underpowered too, which is the 'safe' route when messing with something that works.[/quote]

It makes perfect sense.  If you wanted a truly perfect balance in a fighting game, you'd also have [i]one character[/i].  Nearly every fighting game ever made has established tiers and is frankly far from perfectly balanced.  Some are closer to perfection than others, granted, but you're kidding yourself if you think any fighting game has gotten it dead right.  The original release of SF2 is hardly perfectly tuned.

Thankfully, developers know that variety is important [i]too[/i].

I appreciate your concern though, I just think that Valve is probably well aware of the risks that they're taking, and hopefully they've done enough to balance the game to an acceptable level including the new content.

I think the RPG-like nature of progression you see in current FPS, which is being added into TF2 with these new items is more of a potential issue than the new content itself personally.  It's easier to balance content when it's available to every player, and personally, I don't find replay value in the genre has been enhanced by this trend.. because people who love first person shooters could log hundreds of hours into their favorite games without being egged on by these sort of gimmicks.

Jigen

Commented on 2008-05-01 02:00:54 In reply to GriftGFX

Posted by GriftGFX

I imagine they did loads of testing to get the balance right.. but who knows.

The only reason I brought up that is the game is already released, I don't think companies spend as much resources testing additions to games typically, but the fact that Valve basically 'publishes' their own Steam patches is a big deal. It'd be hard to get a publisher to approve of expensive free additions testing.

Posted by GriftGFX

SMG's > Assault Rifles. CQC rules COD4. I do love the M16 though. Oh, and BF2 is probably less balanced before the unlocks. MEC's default weapons own the USMC's for the most part.

Well it depends on the area, CQC does rule, but that's because of the incredible insta-death knife attack. So basically I feel a 'balanced' fighter would use a M16A because the long range on that thing is nearly insane, and just knife if things get real close. Obviously skill is needed in both cases to make stuff work though.

Personally, a COD4 'fast unlocking' game is fine with me, but games that take MANY hours just for a low level weapon would turn me off if the unlocked weapons are actually 'better'.

Posted by GriftGFX

It makes perfect sense. If you wanted a truly perfect balance in a fighting game, you'd also have one character. Nearly every fighting game ever made has established tiers and is frankly far from perfectly balanced. Some are closer to perfection than others, granted, but you're kidding yourself if you think any fighting game has gotten it dead right. The original release of SF2 is hardly perfectly tuned.

I appreciate your concern though, I just think that Valve is probably well aware of the risks that they're taking, and hopefully they've done enough to balance the game to an acceptable level including the new content.

Well I was just saying that's not practical. Most optimally you have one character/weapon and unlimited ammo so level design and spawn points can't break the gameplay, along with no health and armor pickups. Sounds really boring doesn't it?

Personally I don't even like to thing of the highest level players, where stuff like tiers come into fighting games. I'm thinking purely of a competitive, mildly skilled player that doesn't want to be killed just because the other guy had a weapon that could shoot faster.

I'm not saying the game needs to be perfectly balanced, but the things I've heard before this release just concerned me. I guess it does come partially from being an old-school Quake 1 TF player, and the thought of adding new classes to TF2 almost seems insulting.

In reply to

[quote=GriftGFX]
I imagine they did loads of testing to get the balance right.. but who knows.[/quote]

The only reason I brought up that is the game is already released, I don't think companies spend as much resources testing additions to games typically, but the fact that Valve basically 'publishes' their own Steam patches is a big deal.  It'd be hard to get a publisher to approve of expensive free additions testing.

[quote=GriftGFX]SMG's > Assault Rifles. CQC rules COD4. I do love the M16 though. Oh, and BF2 is probably less balanced before the unlocks. MEC's default weapons own the USMC's for the most part.[/quote]

Well it depends on the area, CQC does rule, but that's because of the incredible insta-death knife attack.  So basically I feel a 'balanced' fighter would use a M16A because the long range on that thing is nearly insane, and just knife if things get real close.  Obviously skill is needed in both cases to make stuff work though.

Personally, a COD4 'fast unlocking' game is fine with me, but games that take MANY hours just for a low level weapon would turn me off if the unlocked weapons are actually 'better'.

[quote=GriftGFX]It makes perfect sense.  If you wanted a truly perfect balance in a fighting game, you'd also have [i]one character[/i].  Nearly every fighting game ever made has established tiers and is frankly far from perfectly balanced.  Some are closer to perfection than others, granted, but you're kidding yourself if you think any fighting game has gotten it dead right.  The original release of SF2 is hardly perfectly tuned.

I appreciate your concern though, I just think that Valve is probably well aware of the risks that they're taking, and hopefully they've done enough to balance the game to an acceptable level including the new content.[/quote]

Well I was just saying that's not practical.  Most optimally you have one character/weapon and unlimited ammo so level design and spawn points can't break the gameplay, along with no health and armor pickups.  Sounds really boring doesn't it?

Personally I don't even like to thing of the highest level players, where stuff like tiers come into fighting games.  I'm thinking purely of a competitive, mildly skilled player that doesn't want to be killed just because the other guy had a weapon that could shoot faster.

I'm not saying the game needs to be perfectly balanced, but the things I've heard before this release just concerned me.  I guess it does come partially from being an old-school Quake 1 TF player, and the thought of adding new classes to TF2 almost seems insulting.

GriftGFX

Commented on 2008-05-01 02:08:28 In reply to Jigen

Well it depends on the area, CQC does rule, but that's because of the incredible insta-death knife attack. So basically I feel a 'balanced' fighter would use a M16A because the long range on that thing is nearly insane, and just knife if things get real close. Obviously skill is needed in both cases to make stuff work though.

Trust me, if you've got the M16 and I've got an MP5 or an AK74u, and we're close enough where your increased accuracy becomes a non-issue, you won't get close enough to knife me ;)--steady aim would help level the playing field a little bit, but I play in an environment where you're not allowed to use it, and it's sort of crazy to give up deep impact on a pub for steady aim anyway.

The SMG's movement bonus is a huge deal in close quarters, and personally I think they rule the mid-range too. I find that people play a little differently on the console version though, and it's harder to take full advantage of the increased look and movement speed that an SMG grants you with a game pad.

Posted by Jigen

Well I was just saying that's not practical. Most optimally you have one character/weapon and unlimited ammo so level design and spawn points can't break the gameplay, along with no health and armor pickups. Sounds really boring doesn't it?

Personally I don't even like to thing of the highest level players, where stuff like tiers come into fighting games. I'm thinking purely of a competitive, mildly skilled player that doesn't want to be killed just because the other guy had a weapon that could shoot faster.

I'm not saying the game needs to be perfectly balanced, but the things I've heard before this release just concerned me. I guess it does come partially from being an old-school Quake 1 TF player, and the thought of adding new classes to TF2 almost seems insulting.

You're right.. it's not practical.. I'm just trying to point out that no game is actually perfectly balanced anyway. It seems you understand that though. I personally think that adding this type of new content isn't particularly dangerous if it's done with a lot of care.

I'm positive that Valve knows that these issues exist.. I'm not positive of how well they've dealt with these issues though, so it should be interesting to see more opinions on the subject as people spend more time with the new weapons.

In reply to

[quote]Well it depends on the area, CQC does rule, but that's because of the incredible insta-death knife attack. So basically I feel a 'balanced' fighter would use a M16A because the long range on that thing is nearly insane, and just knife if things get real close. Obviously skill is needed in both cases to make stuff work though.[/quote]

Trust me, if you've got the M16 and I've got an MP5 or an AK74u, and we're close enough where your increased accuracy becomes a non-issue, you won't get close enough to knife me ;)--steady aim would help level the playing field a little bit, but I play in an environment where you're not allowed to use it, and it's sort of crazy to give up deep impact on a pub for steady aim anyway.

The SMG's movement bonus is a huge deal in close quarters, and personally I think they rule the mid-range too.  I find that people play a little differently on the console version though, and it's harder to take full advantage of the increased look and movement speed that an SMG grants you with a game pad.

[quote=Jigen]Well I was just saying that's not practical.  Most optimally you have one character/weapon and unlimited ammo so level design and spawn points can't break the gameplay, along with no health and armor pickups.  Sounds really boring doesn't it?

Personally I don't even like to thing of the highest level players, where stuff like tiers come into fighting games.  I'm thinking purely of a competitive, mildly skilled player that doesn't want to be killed just because the other guy had a weapon that could shoot faster.

I'm not saying the game needs to be perfectly balanced, but the things I've heard before this release just concerned me.  I guess it does come partially from being an old-school Quake 1 TF player, and the thought of adding new classes to TF2 almost seems insulting.[/quote]

You're right.. it's not practical.. I'm just trying to point out that no game is actually perfectly balanced anyway.  It seems you understand that though.  I personally think that adding this type of new content isn't particularly dangerous if it's done with a lot of care.

I'm positive that Valve knows that these issues exist.. I'm not positive of how well they've dealt with these issues though, so it should be interesting to see more opinions on the subject as people spend more time with the new weapons.

Jigen

Commented on 2008-05-01 02:20:12 In reply to GriftGFX

Posted by GriftGFX

Trust me, if you've got the M16 and I've got an MP5 or an AK74u, and we're close enough where your increased accuracy becomes a non-issue, you won't get close enough to knife me ;)--steady aim would help level the playing field a little bit, but I play in an environment where you're not allowed to use it, and it's sort of crazy to give up deep impact on a pub for steady aim anyway.

The SMG's movement bonus is a huge deal in close quarters, and personally I think they rule the mid-range too. I find that people play a little differently on the console version though, and it's harder to take full advantage of the increased look and movement speed that an SMG grants you with a game pad.

Well, in COD4 for me it never really comes to the point of being outside knife range yet within range where accuracy is irrelevant. Basically I'm either picking people off midrange, around corners and sneaking around corners myself only to knife people close. I've just rarely found sub machineguns very useful. Steady aim is pretty bad IMO, doesn't help enough and it doesn't help sighted view either I hear.

People are generally more stealthy in the console version I would thing. More benefit to just being behind cover and aiming. Noone ever 'Rambo's on the 360 version ever, or you lose. I'm generally one of the best players in COD4, I'm not a very high level just because of the amount of time I've played it, but based on the leaderboards and points versus time as well as kills versus deaths I'd say I'm in the top 1% if not better.

I might imagine you might be right about the SMG play on PC in that case, because the game is fast too.

Posted by GriftGFX

You're right.. it's not practical.. I'm just trying to point out that no game is actually perfectly balanced anyway. It seems you understand that though. I personally think that adding this type of new content isn't particularly dangerous if it's done with a lot of care.

I'm positive that Valve knows that these issues exist.. I'm not positive of how well they've dealt with these issues though, so it should be interesting to see more opinions on the subject as people spend more time with the new weapons.

I don't mind adding new content as much as unlockable weapons period though, only this addition (and future ones) are both unlockables and new content. I wouldn't mind new maps on the 360 version, but if the weapons goof up the core gameplay I'd rather not have them.

I guess it's also because Valve have 'messed' with things before, the dynamic weapon prices in CS:S (it's a balance fixing thing, but it's still changing something that's been the same for a long time).

I hope FPS games never get to be like MMOs, with tons of weapon unlocks and levels and nerfs.

edit : man, I mistype think for thing a lot for some reason...

In reply to

[quote=GriftGFX]Trust me, if you've got the M16 and I've got an MP5 or an AK74u, and we're close enough where your increased accuracy becomes a non-issue, you won't get close enough to knife me ;)--steady aim would help level the playing field a little bit, but I play in an environment where you're not allowed to use it, and it's sort of crazy to give up deep impact on a pub for steady aim anyway.

The SMG's movement bonus is a huge deal in close quarters, and personally I think they rule the mid-range too.  I find that people play a little differently on the console version though, and it's harder to take full advantage of the increased look and movement speed that an SMG grants you with a game pad.[/quote]

Well, in COD4 for me it never really comes to the point of being outside knife range yet within range where accuracy is irrelevant.  Basically I'm either picking people off midrange, around corners and sneaking around corners myself only to knife people close.  I've just rarely found sub machineguns very useful.  Steady aim is pretty bad IMO, doesn't help enough and it doesn't help sighted view either I hear.

People are generally more stealthy in the console version I would thing.  More benefit to just being behind cover and aiming.  Noone ever 'Rambo's on the 360 version ever, or you lose.  I'm generally one of the best players in COD4, I'm not a very high level just because of the amount of time I've played it, but based on the leaderboards and points versus time as well as kills versus deaths I'd say I'm in the top 1% if not better.

I might imagine you might be right about the SMG play on PC in that case, because the game is fast too.

[quote=GriftGFX]You're right.. it's not practical.. I'm just trying to point out that no game is actually perfectly balanced anyway.  It seems you understand that though.  I personally think that adding this type of new content isn't particularly dangerous if it's done with a lot of care.

I'm positive that Valve knows that these issues exist.. I'm not positive of how well they've dealt with these issues though, so it should be interesting to see more opinions on the subject as people spend more time with the new weapons.[/quote]

I don't mind adding new content as much as unlockable weapons period though, only this addition (and future ones) are both unlockables and new content.  I wouldn't mind new maps on the 360 version, but if the weapons goof up the core gameplay I'd rather not have them.

I guess it's also because Valve have 'messed' with things before, the dynamic weapon prices in CS:S (it's a balance fixing thing, but it's still changing something that's been the same for a long time).

I hope FPS games never get to be like MMOs, with tons of weapon unlocks and levels and nerfs.

edit : man, I mistype think for thing a lot for some reason...

mustacio

Commented on 2008-05-01 05:15:57

only 9 comments and the whole page is taken up :O

In reply to

Isomac

Commented on 2008-05-01 11:34:11

What I read about weapons those didn't sound too powerful. Weapons will get some bonuses but will lose some too. I for one are really excited to test this around when all characters have these upgrades. Adds more tactics to this game and it's fun when you can't be sure what weapons other players have :) Also it's probably fun to test different weapon combinations. If there is issues I am sure future patches will fix those and this is free so I am all for it :D

Edit: You guys really need PC logo too :)

In reply to