Nexuiz Team Fortress - Concept Pics

[Flying Steel]

Hmm.. ok.. how's this:

Assume we stick with a human team for now, the average model would be the size of an average human. However, most of these guys would be carrying around a lot of gear and armor, and would be a bit wider than an average human. The Heavy Weapons Guy is huge, and would be maybe 5& taller than an average human and 10% wider (bulk + gear).

The current Nexuiz player models already have that kind of size variation, even though their collision boxes are all the same dimensions. So if you want an immediate stand in for a beefier class, you could just use Nexus, Xolar or Mulder.

The runner, assassin, hacker, and sniper are lightly equipped and would be completely average WRT hight and width. I don't know what kind of units one uses for speeds and so on

Also, I made some more tweaks on the classes (including armor and hp): . . .

I have a fairly hefty design alteration / modular implementation plan for character classes that I feel could make this project easier to implement, fill more gameplay types and also in my opinion keep more with Nexuiz' "flavor". I think we should break design work of the character classes into two modules:


The first module (and be prepared for another shock because this will seem very contrarian) is to make and balance all character classes against each other in pure player versus player singular combat without using things that don't or won't exist anywhere else in Nexuiz. Each character class would get one of Nexuiz' existing weapons, get a change to its stable armor and health levels and diverse mobility through altering movement physics stats and giving some classes the mutator jetpack or offhand grapple hook (and possibly altering their fuel stats as well).

--- (I have alot of ideas about how this much of the character classes would function that I'd like to go with.) ---


The second module is deployables, abilities that alter the map, or things that benefit a team but not the individual character who uses it. These abilities would be added to the individually balanced and very diverse character classes mentioned above, to create a version of team fortess that mixes and finds a balance with the "flavor" of Nexuiz that emphasizes mobility, firepower and (as a result of those two things) individual skill over team work (versus many other games). Some of these things, being new to Nexuiz and therefor needing to be done from scratch, could be the most work on the code side and thus take the most time to implement, so balancing work could benefit from dealing with these separately and not having to wait for all of these features to be implemented beforehand.

--- (And these features are the part that you might want to design and decide which of the character classes should get which of these specials, in part because they'll probably need to take into consideration map features like assault, onslaught, spawn and choke points, for any extisting maps that you feel this mutator is best for, as well as whatever maps you plan on creating with this mutator in mind.) ---

[Clueless Newbie]

The current Nexuiz player models already have that kind of size variation, even though their collision boxes are all the same dimensions. So if you want an immediate stand in for a beefier class, you could just use Nexus, Xolar or Mulder.

Bookmark models? Sure.

I have a fairly hefty design alteration / modular implementation plan for character classes that I feel could make this project easier to implement, fill more gameplay types and also in my opinion keep more with Nexuiz' "flavor". I think we should break design work of the character classes into two modules:


The first module (and be prepared for another shock because this will seem very contrarian) is to make and balance all character classes against each other in pure player versus player singular combat without using things that don't or won't exist anywhere else in Nexuiz. Each character class would get one of Nexuiz' existing weapons, get a change to its stable armor and health levels and diverse mobility through altering movement physics stats and giving some classes the mutator jetpack or offhand grapple hook (and possibly altering their fuel stats as well).

Hmm.. I'm not sure it's necessary (or even desirable) to have classes that are equal in 1 vs 1 matches. IMO a paper-scissor-rock setup might be better. The important thing (IMHO) is that all the classes have their uses and are capable of being useful to their own team and/or cause harm to the other team.

--- (I have alot of ideas about how this much of the character classes would function that I'd like to go with.) ---


The second module is deployables, abilities that alter the map, or things that benefit a team but not the individual character who uses it. These abilities would be added to the individually balanced and very diverse character classes mentioned above, to create a version of team fortess that mixes and finds a balance with the "flavor" of Nexuiz that emphasizes mobility, firepower and (as a result of those two things) individual skill over team work (versus many other games). Some of these things, being new to Nexuiz and therefor needing to be done from scratch, could be the most work on the code side and thus take the most time to implement, so balancing work could benefit from dealing with these separately and not having to wait for all of these features to be implemented beforehand.

I dunno. IMO it would be better to just make the classes and play some rounds, then tweak the classes that come out as being too weak or too strong — which doesn't necessarily apply to a combat situation. The assassin, sniper, and hacker classes, for instance, would come out as weak in a direct 1-vs-1 using ordinary nex weapons and no special abilities, but let them use their special skills and weapons and they can all be lethal in their own way.

[some-guy]

Maybe it should have radars that are needed for team chat

[alpha]

runner must have laser as weapon
sniper hp/armor is too low

what's heavy machine gun ?

[President]

what's heavy machine gun ?

Something like this, but suited for handholding:


The machine gun is the one we got in game.

The Light machinegun should be a submachine gun. The perfect weapon for silenced sound.

[Flying Steel]

Hmm.. I'm not sure it's necessary (or even desirable) to have classes that are equal in 1 vs 1 matches. IMO a paper-scissor-rock setup might be better. The important thing (IMHO) is that all the classes have their uses and are capable of being useful to their own team and/or cause harm to the other team.

But does rock-paper-scissors balancing apply to the Nexuiz weapons? Because those are, imo, quite balanced and a major part of what makes Nexuiz, Nexuiz, so I think they are using the best model to build character classes off of.

To be more specific, my impression of the Nexuiz weapons is that they each become stronger and weaker in different areas of a map and in the hands of different players with different play styles. For these reasons you can gain great advantage by switching weapons as you move into different areas of the map (cover, tunnels, open, highground, lowground, etc.) or by filling a role in you team (sniping with Nex, Rifle and Machinegun or 'closing the gates' behind your flag carrier with rockets grenades and electros to thwart his pursuers.)

This same balancing technique worked effectively in many tactical shooters as well, and the differences between them and Nexuiz are not all that different; all we have to change are a few things:

1) A player cannot switch weapons as he goes, he must stick with the weapon of the character class he has chosen. (Thus as you move into an area of the map where your weapon is less effective, you will want your teamates with better suited weapons for support).

2) Different Health and Mobility stats, likewise tied to the character class chosen. (Which will combine with the built in weapons to create further strengths and weaknesses in different areas of the map and for different player's skills).

3) A variety of special equipment, again tied to the chosen character class, that fall under the category of deployable and/or team support. (Each character class would get no more and no less than one of these.)


I feel sticking to these three changes has the advantages of:

1) Being less work and time to develope.

2) Keeping the Nexuiz flavor (alot of which comes from sticking with its weapons as one example).

3) Creating a Mutator that can work with any gametype (including DM).

4) Spreading the support role 'burden' equally amoung all players so that teams don't lose because too few made the 'sacrifice' of taking a support class that does all the 'boring' non-combat stuff. (A big problem for alot of older tactical games, with more modern ones compensating by having fewer support classes and making them basically as deadly as the classical combat classes.)

[Clueless Newbie]

runner must have laser as weapon
sniper hp/armor is too low

The runner is going to be the fastest class as is. A laser would let a runner bounce from one end of the map to the other. The last thing the runner needs is a laser.

Snipers shouldn't really need much in the way of HP and armor, since they're not supposed to be involved in direct combat. We'll find out when we start testing the classes.

what's heavy machine gun ?

A giant gun that saws everything in half..

[Clueless Newbie]

Hmm.. I'm not sure it's necessary (or even desirable) to have classes that are equal in 1 vs 1 matches. IMO a paper-scissor-rock setup might be better. The important thing (IMHO) is that all the classes have their uses and are capable of being useful to their own team and/or cause harm to the other team.

But does rock-paper-scissors balancing apply to the Nexuiz weapons?

Probably not, but that's besides the point. Let's say you have a one on one with with sniper and HWG. If they're close or mid-range, the HWG would shred the sniper. At long range, the sniper should be able to take out the HWG with 2-3 shots. This makes one vs one balancing pointless, IMHO. We have to look at how the classes work within the team.

This same balancing technique worked effectively in many tactical shooters as well, and the differences between them and Nexuiz are not all that different; all we have to change are a few things:

1) A player cannot switch weapons as he goes, he must stick with the weapon of the character class he has chosen. (Thus as you move into an area of the map where your weapon is less effective, you will want your teamates with better suited weapons for support).

2) Different Health and Mobility stats, likewise tied to the character class chosen. (Which will combine with the built in weapons to create further strengths and weaknesses in different areas of the map and for different player's skills).

3) A variety of special equipment, again tied to the chosen character class, that fall under the category of deployable and/or team support. (Each character class would get no more and no less than one of these.)

I agree with all of this. It's just the 1 vs 1 testing I'm against.

4) Spreading the support role 'burden' equally amoung all players so that teams don't lose because too few made the 'sacrifice' of taking a support class that does all the 'boring' non-combat stuff. (A big problem for alot of older tactical games, with more modern ones compensating by having fewer support classes and making them basically as deadly as the classical combat classes.)

This is an important point. As the classes are set up now, I can see three potentially "weak" classes; the runner, the hacker, and the assassin. I think the runner and the assassin will work out fine, because the runner is great for capping the flag and making hit-and-run attacks (no shortage of runners in the original QTF), and an assassin that kills from behind is always popular. The hacker is the class that might turn out to be the "useful but boring" one.

But this is something that shows up during gameplay with full teams, not one on one matches.

[Flying Steel]

Hmm.. I'm not sure it's necessary (or even desirable) to have classes that are equal in 1 vs 1 matches. IMO a paper-scissor-rock setup might be better. The important thing (IMHO) is that all the classes have their uses and are capable of being useful to their own team and/or cause harm to the other team.

But does rock-paper-scissors balancing apply to the Nexuiz weapons?

Probably not, but that's besides the point. Let's say you have a one on one with with sniper and HWG. If they're close or mid-range, the HWG would shred the sniper. At long range, the sniper should be able to take out the HWG with 2-3 shots. This makes one vs one balancing pointless, IMHO.

I would agree that the the sniper and heavy would each have effective ranges where one had the advantage over the other. But the dynamics come from one trying to maneuver or find the other in a disadvantageous scenario, as well as the general evasion and marksmanship skills of the players.

This same balancing technique worked effectively in many tactical shooters as well, and the differences between them and Nexuiz are not all that different; all we have to change are a few things:

1) A player cannot switch weapons as he goes, he must stick with the weapon of the character class he has chosen. (Thus as you move into an area of the map where your weapon is less effective, you will want your teamates with better suited weapons for support).

2) Different Health and Mobility stats, likewise tied to the character class chosen. (Which will combine with the built in weapons to create further strengths and weaknesses in different areas of the map and for different player's skills).

3) A variety of special equipment, again tied to the chosen character class, that fall under the category of deployable and/or team support. (Each character class would get no more and no less than one of these.)

I agree with all of this. It's just the 1 vs 1 testing I'm against.

Well maybe perfectly playable one on one balancing shouldn't be a requirement (though it'd be a nice thing to try and achieve), but what I mean is, if you set any two individual classes against each other on a balanced map, one won't be able to run the other over; if there isn't enough overlap between the scenarios they each have an advantage in, then at worst they'd each end up camping wherever each was strongest (a stalemate- unplayable but balanced).

4) Spreading the support role 'burden' equally amoung all players so that teams don't lose because too few made the 'sacrifice' of taking a support class that does all the 'boring' non-combat stuff. (A big problem for alot of older tactical games, with more modern ones compensating by having fewer support classes and making them basically as deadly as the classical combat classes.)

This is an important point. As the classes are set up now, I can see three potentially "weak" classes; the runner, the hacker, and the assassin. I think the runner and the assassin will work out fine, because the runner is great for capping the flag and making hit-and-run attacks (no shortage of runners in the original QTF), and an assassin that kills from behind is always popular. The hacker is the class that might turn out to be the "useful but boring" one.

Skirmishing and guerrilla warfare are perfectly fun combat roles that can be balanced to be equally effective with the others.

What I am talking about are classes named and seemingly based after non-combat, primarily teamwork oriented roles, like the Engineers, the Hacker and perhaps the Suicide Bomber. I want to get rid of classes like these and spread the special abilities over each class, so that each class contributes something actively or passively that can have a special benefit for his wider team.

Like a sensory package for a scout class that allows its entire team to see icons of where all enemies are that are in line-of-sight of the scout, armor drops for an assault class or deployable cover for a heavy class.

[Clueless Newbie]

I would agree that the the sniper and heavy would each have effective ranges where one had the advantage over the other. But the dynamics come from one trying to maneuver or find the other in a disadvantageous scenario, as well as the general evasion and marksmanship skills of the players.

Yep. But that's best sorted out in full team games, not one on ones. (Again; IMO)

Mind you, there's no reason why you can't do some 1 on 1 testing anyway, just to see what happens. Could be interesting. I just don't think that's a good way to balance the classes.

What I am talking about are classes named and seemingly based after non-combat, primarily teamwork oriented roles, like the Engineers, the Hacker and perhaps the Suicide Bomber. I want to get rid of classes like these

(slams on brakes)

Woah, wait a minute! The QTF engie was my favorite class (scout being the second). Even though the engineer — as I've outlined it — has a number of support functions, you're forgetting that they build turrets and the turrets do the fighting for them. That's the main attraction of the engineer class. The most satisfying thing about the engineer is finding a clever location for your turret and then watch as it racks up the kills. Building bridges and stuff like that is something the engy can do while his turrets blows away the enemy. TF without the engineer isn't TF, IMO.

The suicide bomber is nothing but a combat class. No support at all. Spawn, jump into room full of hostiles, *BOOM!*, spawn. Of course, clearing a room of enemies could be considered a support function..

As for the hacker, yes, it is probably a weak class the way it is now. The hacker's ability to take over enemy turrets might compensate for this — especially if the hacker can pwn an unlimited number of turrets (full game testing to find out). Don't remove the support-oriented classes. Instead, find ways to make them fun.

and spread the special abilities over each class, so that each class contributes something actively or passively that can have a special benefit for his wider team.

Uhh.. You mean like letting HWGs build turrets?

Like a sensory package for a scout class that allows its entire team to see icons of where all enemies are that are in line-of-sight of the scout

Sure. The runner or assassin class could do that. The runner is pretty close to the QTF scout class anyway (my second-favorite QTF class ).

armor drops for an assault class

The runner class could do that. They drop ammo and materials, might as well drop armor.

or deployable cover for a heavy class.

What the engineer can do while his turret accumulates kills.. The HWG's "support function" is in many ways to be a movable turret. It's an obstacle that kills the enemy.

I don't think we should remove any classes until we've tested them in a full game. Then we can see what classes are fun and what classes are weak and / or boring, and maybe also get a fair idea on how to improve those classes. If they really are unfixable, then we get rid of them.