Feature #4868

sanity limits for classes

Added by CoolBox-SBS- over 7 years ago. Updated about 7 years ago.

Status:New Start date:09/27/2009
Priority:Normal Due date:
Assignee:- % Done:


Target version:thefuture


After much discussion of whether it is workable to limit the number of sniper classes in a team, or engineers or whatever, it seems a new idea has come up: a sanity limit.

This limit is to stop the other team "taking the piss". So for example, in a side of 20 players, there would be a sanity limit for example of 8 snipers. Likewise 8 engineers, 8 anti air or whatever. So no class may be more than 40% of the makeup of the team.

For very small team sizes <10 players side there would be no restrictions at all.

This is very different from a limit which means that a certain class is a precious resource (e.g. 2 snipers per 20 players), which for the record I am against, because I can see no good way of making a system to decide who gets to play what. considering implementing it beta 09 before the feature freeze.

Also this feature would only apply for tournament and AGW rulesets (and of course hardcore/BCA if worm or toaster like it), but not for public play.

Thoughts, feedback?

Related issues

related to Advance and Secure (AAS) - Feature #7734: AGW: kit limit enforcement New 01/04/2010


Updated by kju over 7 years ago

Hm sorry I dont quite get the difference.
The basic different is a higher limit, no?

In terms of how to solve class exchange.
How about revert to soldier and not able to take
this given special class before someone else has
taken it.

So on death someone else can get it on first pick.
Once he is dead, you may get it again, if you are luck
to be the first pick.

The only issue I can see is that people force ESC respawn
to be able to get the first pick.
That could be avoided, by making it not as obvious once
it is available again, like having a random delay before it is.

Updated by Blisstick over 7 years ago

That could be a viable option and would require a lot less tweaking that setting fixed numbers of certain kits. As far as AGW C2 is concerned, I think running the new, fixed kits will be enough to get rid of the craziness that occurs sometimes in battles where everyone can take a rifle and rocket launcher and go ramboing. It is better than trying to manage kit numbers with the customized vs specialized percentage and manually chasing/harping at HCOs to get people to change kits as well!

One questing applying to this idea, though: Are all primary weapons found in classes now? The last new version I tried (which I wish we could run, but the kit system applies to AGW Rules as well and we're not ready for that until C2 scrims in 5 weeks) had some stingers and stuff still in crates.

Also, be careful not to limit the use of rifleman kits!

Updated by Tonmeister over 7 years ago

I very much agree with limiting the craziness of the rambo style sometimes endemic in some battles, however being too strict on what someone uses in the heat of battle, when its justifiably needed can easily make or break a situation. If a player chooses a sniper class he should get the most out of that particular kit selection, however the flip side is that he should not be stopped from using a smaw. However because its not his specific class, his loadout of smaw rounds could be limited to 1. If an AT player grabbed a sniper rifle, his magazine loadout could be reduced to 1 or 2 mags. This still allows players to experience a variety of weaponary, but ensures in some way its not overly abused.


Updated by kju over 7 years ago

A simple and coherent design has many benefits.

One being least work and easiest to manage.

So at least in my view the question is not solely what is possible,
yet it is what is meaningful and doable.

Updated by wormeaten over 7 years ago

I like limitation about some combination of the kits.

If you think about balance some problems could be fixed with just different aspects on other side.
Sniper for example is weapon for long range and slow fire rate and has disadvantage in CQB but if you playing with cross hair all this disadvantage despair. In case with 3D and cross hair turned off sniper can only operating in distance and have to avoid CQB. Strategically if one team have too many snipers loosing attacking ability and could lose no matter how many kills they made.

That is the logic I follow when I was think about classes in Hardcore rules. I try to balance between weapons and try to play it exclusively on expert level and you will notice every class have some advantage and disadvantage for different use. So situation forcing people on more team work and usage of different classes.

Other example here is only light AT with just one rocket. Why? Because in the game should be enjoining everyone. I know it is cool when you easy kill the tank but what about dose who driving tank they have right to enjoying too. Tank suppose to spread fear on battlefield and it is cool to spreading fear around you but 3 coordinated AT soldiers can destroy tank easy or just one if he sneak behind and hit tank i ass in 90 deg. angle.

You can destroy it with satchels too as demolition class and AT have AT mines also. And one more important thing 1 rocket should be combined with longer spawn time at least 5min so this tank should have bigger value.

Try to play HC rules on expert and take attention on this issue.

Updated by BCA_Cat_Toaster over 7 years ago

Personlly I think we should check out how all the latest (possible) changes actually influence gameplay like the new Class-Kit-System, different Vehicle-Spawntimes and the Armory-Timer and finetune those settings first to see if there´s still a need of limiting weapons and classes. I don´t see that at the moment.

I also agree with wormeaten that all scoped weapons are nearly useless in CQB-Situations if the Host simply deactivates the Crosshair. That´s a really simple solution every Host can do.

Updated by kju over 7 years ago

Disabling crosshair is a none solution.

Paint a dot on your monitor and you basically have it again.

Instead you introduce very grave gameplay changes you seem not to be aware of.

Attacking is a central part and there is always the need for one side to attack.
Disabling crosshair makes defending so much easier:

  • movement is tiring
  • bringing the sights on target from movement is possible to learn, yet very hard vs the defenders situation
  • seeing motion during movement is far harder compared to standing still
  • the defender in general has way more time to choose his position carefully
  • static defense can be used in teamplay to build a far better advantage than combined attacking can

Every gameplay that favors, especially big time, defending is very boring.

Instead the solution is simple:

Make a game(play) that is easy to learn, but hard to master.

Remove Javelin, introduce AT that is slow(er) and has limited effective range.
Disable 3rd to make vehicles not perfectly situation/surrounding aware.
Reduce or remove weapons that are far too strong in all aspects (SVD, ACOG).
(aka close, mid and distance effectiveness, accuracy, reload time, damage)
Remove artificial zoom factor as infantry, from optics and in vehicles to
reduce combat range effectiveness.
Use weapons that have less range of effectiveness vs spotting distance.

You need to understand that his all has been done (in OFP, a1).
This is an engine that allows modifications at such level and intelligent
people have figured out excellent solutions.

There is no need to use such artificial design ideas coming from other games.

Updated by wormeaten over 7 years ago

Completely agree with you kju but just to mention it what I offer is not solution it is just showing how things could be more balanced with engine as it is now and to check on all aspects how some things could be reflecting on balance in general.

This will help us to better evaluate new features finding best possible solutions and determine priority.

Updated by CoolBox-SBS- over 7 years ago

  • Priority changed from High to Normal

Updated by wormeaten over 7 years ago

What is the current situation with this issue?

Updated by Blisstick over 7 years ago

I guess this is similar but not quite the same as the issue CB is working on for us for C2.
The other Issue can be found here so people can see where we're at with it: http://dev-heaven.net/issues/show/5901

Updated by wormeaten over 7 years ago

As I see this is a separate issue. This is new classes system created for AGW rules as General wish.

Limitation of some weapons will create new situation on the ground and classes should be changed according new changes and wishes of users in all rules set.

In rules set you adapting engine possibilities to your needs and try to get best you can from what you got in that moment. Limitation of usage some weapons is connected with kits in rules set but completely separate issue right now and I hope when we develop one will be possible to arrange true rules set script.

Updated by BCA_Cat_Toaster over 7 years ago

  • Target version set to thefuture

Updated by AGW-Grimes about 7 years ago

If CB is still working on this, I think it would be a great feature.

Also available in: Atom PDF