Game Objectives & MMO Games (Part I)

Forward

This document has been sitting on my drive collecting dust for a couple of months now, and I've been meaning to finish it for quite some time, but have been too busy. A recent conversation with a few friends reminded me about it, and I figured it would be worth posting if only to provide fellow Tribes players arsenal from which to construct their own gametypes. By providing arsenal, I mean the "4 root objectives" that every multiplayer shooter uses- either alone or in combination.

I will eventually write a second part to this where I discuss different directions a Tribes MMO game could take. It would be much more interesting to post what other people come up with, however- so if you have any interesting ideas for gametypes that would work well in an MMO format while still staying true to the essence of Tribes, post them up here (use the terminology I provide here, of course). This is simply rhetorical and for fun- there are no plans to make an MMO.

Tribes MMOFPS Format

The primary objective SOE set fourth in its MMOFPS Planetside was territory acquisition- and that objective simply makes sense when talking about the logic of an MMO, and really ought to set the standard for other MMOFPS games. As of now, no notably successful MMOFPS games have been made other than Planetside, so the genre stands largely uncontested. In Planetside, there is much land to be used to play on- it'd make sense the acquisition of the land would be the primary objective. The format Planetside uses for players to achieve the primary goal is a system of capturing bases, either by destroying the base gens (or otherwise taking their power offline), or by hacking the base. Bases were connected with a lattice sytem- so you could only take bases connected to a base you already own, in order to “sweep” the continent you were playing on.

In Tribes, the primary gametype the community was built around was CTF. And in Tribes CTF, the primary objective- the objective which decides who wins and who loses- is the number of flag captures your team has. The “base” game, involving defending your base and attacking the enemy base, is a secondary objective- while the base game is normally very important in achieving flag captures, it is not always needed- especially on maps that lend itself to “cluster” or “spawn” play. This appears to be diametrically opposed to Planetside's system based on land acquisition.

In the later years of Planetside, the win-game was altered a bit- instead of just hacking the base in order to claim it, you hacked the base to acquire a “flag” from the base, and then you had to take that flag back to a base you already owned to claim the new base. This played similar to standard CTF- but the difference is you had to have a teammate hack the base first, and even before the flag game existed, hacking the base took some time. You had to protect your hacker while he was doing it, and if he died another hacker would have to start all over again.

Already we can see how the team-centric Tribes gameplay might just “fit the mold” of an MMOFPS, but instead of trying to force it, it seems more logical to address all of the different objective systems used in traditional shooter games, and see which combination of objectives tailor themselves to the gameplay of Tribes, and of an MMO.

These objectives likely go by other names in the realm of game theory, but I am using my own names and definitions for simplicity.

Objectives

Object-centric Objectives – In gametypes that use object-centric objectives, each team has an object, and one team scores by taking an object away from the enemy team while their team is still in possession of their object. The classic version of a gametype that uses object-centric objectives is Capture the Flag. There are multiple variations of game rules that use this type of objective- objects can be touch-returned or have the need to be “brought home”. In “reverse CTF” the position of the flags is reversed- so instead of having to run to the enemy side to get the flag, you begin with the flag, and have to bring it to the enemy side while your flag is still on its stand. Another derivation of this gametype simply calls for one team to hold onto an object for as long as possible without having to deliver it anywhere.

Touch Objectives – Touch objectives need to be touched in order to satisfy the win condition. One team tries to prevent the other team from doing this. Often gametypes that revolve around a touch objective will give each team a turn at attacking and defending the goal. In the first round, if one team ends up touching the goal, in the subsequent round, the other team tries to touch the goal in less time than the first. Again, the gametypes that use a touch objective can have many varying rules.

Hold Objectives – Hold objectives require players to stand within a limited distance away from a specific object or location in order to win. King of the Hill is a classic example of a game-type that employs use of the Hold Objective. With touch objectives, either you are awarded points for the time you are within the “win area”, or you win by standing in the “win area” a specific duration of time. In the former case, the amount of points determines who wins, but in either case, it's about surviving in confinement, which can prove challenging in a shooter game.

Destroy Objectives – Destroy objectives require players to destroy an object (such as a generator) to satisfy a win condition. An object has a certain amount of health (or some other vital) that needs to be brought down to 0 by causing it damage with weapons fire. (Note- this is not the same as objectives requiring a bomb to be planted to detonate an object- that is usually using some other objective type such as a hold objective).

These 4 objectives are the traditional “root” objectives of which all other objectives are based off (in some combination or sense) for shooter games. You either have to kill something (destroy something), sit still for a while (hold), get to a certain location (touch), or bring an object back to your team (object-centric) in most shooter games to win. In a sense, you can call these objectives the “mother objectives” (the sauces of tasty videogame cuisine). Even arena and deathmatch-style games belong to an objective type here, and that is “destroy”- you want to destroy the other team's members before they destroy your team members.

The reason I point out these 4 root objectives is it makes it easy to craft a gametype using them. One thing worth nothing is that these objectives can easily be used to define the metagame of previous Tribes games. Your HOF (heavy-on-flag) sits on your flag as long as possible to protect it, a capper is obviously aiming for the flag (object-centric), your HO (heavy offense) are trying to take out the enemy generators, turrets, and HOF (destroy), and usually all of your team members want to touch an inventory station to load out with gear (touch). All of these actions (with the exception of flag capping) are secondary objectives.

How does Tribes fit the picture of an MMOFPS though? In an MMOFPS, land acquisition is the primary objective. But as you can see, that primary objective is completed by performing the root objectives over and over again to acquire land. Hacking an enemy base is actually a form of “Hold objective” where you need to hold the room the hacker is in and protect him- the duration of the “Hold” being how long it takes to complete he hack. All the other ways I described that you can use to take over a base in Planetside can be explained by Object, Touch, Hold, and Destroy.

But how do we apply this knowledge to Tribes when making a gametype suitable for an MMO?

Weapons & Skill

Attempting to address the weapons in Tribes 2 is similar in experience to cooking a meal. Just the thought of the final product makes your mouth water. Sometimes it looks like it will be easy with all the parts laid out in front of you. You might burn yourself along the way. Cussing will certainly be involved. Your eyes might tear up. You have to wait a while. Generally, it's a bitch when doing it with other people. And it's uncertain if it will even taste good at the end. But you dream of the enjoyable end-product, and you think it's worth it. Right?

Weapons in Tribes have been debated- and still continue to be debated to this day (really, this game is how old?) I've put much thought into the reason the weapons are the way they are- and if changes were made to them, what would be the ideal way to do it. Not ideal in the sense that everyone agrees with it, but ideal in the sense that would give every weapon a purpose (or a “niche”), require skill to use, and still fit into the overarching metagame. There are certainly some weapons that are never used in competitive play. And some weapons people abuse to some extent or another, without having a particular goal in mind other than to kill people, or grief people. And to some extent, this will never go away.

I want to address each weapon in Tribes 2- what I think about each one's role in the game, if they do their job well, and how I would change them (if I'd change them at all). But before I dive in, I want to share the overarching theory I applied to each of the weapons when considering them- I do this, because the terms I use will come up many times in the writing. Specifically, I want to talk about the idea of skill.

Skill

Most people talk about weapons in terms of skill. How skilled do you need to be to use a weapon? Does this weapon take skill to use? Or is it a noob tube? Ideally, you want to be sure that a weapon's effectiveness is proportionate to the amount of skill it takes to use it- and keep that proportion constant on all of your weapons. But what the hell does skill mean anyway? People throw the word around when talking about weapons without elating to their meaning. To me, skill can be broken down into 3 components.

1. “Twitch” or Motor Control Skill – The how well you do the basic executions, including aiming, and Leading. How quickly can you press the buttons, and how precise can you make your player movements and weapons fire. Requires good hand-eye coordination in a virtual 3D space. Can use critical thinking, over time is “learned” and becomes instinct.
2. Analytical or “Tactical” Skills – Knowing the best way to going about your basic executions. Knowing when or how much you need to lead. Knowing the optimal position you need to be in to do something. Knowing your constraints and how to work within them. Knowing when you can fudge the rules. Requires critical thinking.
3. Strategic Skills – Understanding of the overarching game, and determining the best plan of action to reach a goal. Requires critical thinking.

You can think of it like this:

There is a problem. To succeed, I need to determine the best plan of action to take. I need to determine the manner in which I am going to do this plan of action. And I need to do the execute the plan as best as I can.

There is a hiearchy in play here. Strategy, Tactics, Twitch.

When you're coaching a team, you're thinking top-down, focused on strategy and developing and refining tactical and twitch skills. When you're first learning a game, you're learning bottom-up, starting with twitch, and overtime mastering strategy.

This idea of skill applies to all aspects of the game, but it's especially important to keep these distinctions in mind when concerning weapons and tools- they are the primary reason anything gets done. So without further ado, let's jump into the weapons.

Weapons

Disc Launcher
This is the bread and butter weapon of Tribes. This is the shit. Essentially a rocket launcher, it's a staple to most every loadout. There is nothing wrong with how this weapon functions- and why fix what's not broken? There is one thing that needs to be addressed, and that is the fact that T1's projectile inheritance was 50% of the player momentum, and T2C's projectile inheritance was 75%. I'd go halfway with inheritance to compromise with both camps. This of course applies to more than just the disc, but it is worth bringing up ecspecially in this case because of the impact of mid-air discs to the game. Of course, the explosion impulse needs to be mapped to a function as opposed to a linear impulse, to get the feeling of disc jumping just right.

Chaingun
Essentially fires projectiles at a fast clip, in a somewhat tight cone of fire. It's the weapon of choice for airborne targets. It's pretty unreliable at a distance, but becomes largely more effective when together with many other teammates – it's a good way Tribes promotes teamplay without forcing it. This is a controversial weapon for many people because of it's apparent lack of skill required, and the reliance of “spray and pray”. I however would disagree to some extent- there are many things you need to be able to do to be effective as a player when using the weapon.

For an example of what it takes to chaingun effectively, look at what happens when you chase someone (a prime example, because when you are chasing a flag carrier, you are trying to chain him out of the sky a majority of the time). When you are chasing, you have to lead the target to some degree to get hits- and that's not always easy with a fast moving object moving across your screen. And in order to be more precise with your leading from a distance, you need to be zoomed in at least a bit, and this means you can't always see the ground below you- and if you are in the air and chaining someone, sometimes the ground is not visible in your view at all. But chasing requires you to move fast in a hurry to intercept the capper- so hitting the right bowls and hills is essential. Because of this, chasing a capper with the chaingun requires a good sensibility of where you are in the air- you essentially need to manage your lead on the target and your own position and movement all at the same time.

Sure, anyone can stand on a hill and chainwhore enemies passing by- but he likely could be doing a million more effective things than that.

The chaingun doesn't need a change from T2C. Unlike the chaingun in T:V, it should have a spin up and spin down- this is one of the important balancing factors for the weapon. You need to commit to shooting the chaingun because of it's spin up, so you need to choose when to use it wisely.

Another thing I want to address about the chaingun is the use of scripts to change network interpolation. The fact these variables were built into Tribes 2 and were made open for editing suggests it's not really a cheat, but it wasn't easy for a common user to change these variables without using a script, so it was either you had it, or you didn't. I personally didn't notice much of a difference when I accidentally turned off my interpolate script for a month, but I can say it definitely adds something of an advantage. People like having that amount of control over their network settings, and it's no different than wanting to play on a server that gives you a better ping than another. For these reasons, I'd suggest an equivalent of the interpolate script with a GUI to be written into a game from the get-go to allow everyone access to these net tools.

Blaster
The blaster is one of those weapons that is begging to be used, but doesn't really seem useful at anything in particular. I like to equate it to the pistol in Half Life, or the Assault Rifle in UT- pretty much any wimpy weapon in a game you start out with that you quickly find a replacement for (makes sense, since it IS the player's default weapon). Many people in T1 and T2 used a script that automatically threw the blaster away after spawning- just the idea makes me roll my eyes. 

The blaster did try to fill a role to some extent- it's ability to penetrate shields made it a useful weapon for spawn LDs in widdling down the health of shield pack heavies. Many indoor HD decide to give a weapon slot to the blaster instead of the mortar, since it's obviously more useful than something that can take out your base. So it seems like it wants to be a weapon for defense. But the fact of the matter is, the projectiles travel so slow, and the projectiles do so little damage, that most any other weapon would be more effective taking up that weapon slot (even the ELF). The blaster also seems to want to fill the niche of the disc launcher, but fails on every level. There are a few things I can think of that would help the blaster fill a defensive role better.

One technique- one we've seen two Tribes projects use (Legends, and Enemy Territory:Tribal Wars) is turning the blaster into an assault rifle of sorts, firing quick rounds. Something that functions like a chaingun but with a tighter arc, and having each shot do less damage per shot. Also, the projectiles still eat up your energy and penetrate through shields. And the gun would have to be semi-auto, and the projectiles could only travel so far. This would make the blaster inherently more useful in tearing up shield HO by many LD players working together, and firing upon the heavy from a distance (which is ideally where spawning LD players want to be anyway).

There is another solution I have thought up that couples the blaster and another weapon together, but I will get to that later. Basically, the blaster needs to be useful for something. Or in better terms, more effective at what it could be useful for.

Grenade Launcher
Again, another weapon that I don't believe needs to be changed. It is yet another weapon that can mess people up and fast, but it's pretty much only useful on land targets. To successfully land a mid-air nade, you need to not only account for the grenade's delayed fuse, but the arc that the nade travels in as well, and the grenade hitbox- MAs are almost never seen. The rapid fire of the grenade launcher makes it great for spamming flag stands, and the delayed fuse makes it a decent weapon at defending indoor areas because it can bounce around corners (the grenades bounce everywhere though, so a D player needs to be cautious when using it indoors). Sure, it can deal a great amount of damage and very fast- but if you become prey to it, it means you probably should have been moving around a bit more, and not as predictably. No change on the grenade launcher.

Plasma Rifle
The plasma rifle, like the blaster, seems to want to be the disc launcher- it fires a slow moving projectile. This weapon is a bit more successful at mimicking the disc launcher than the blaster is, but it still falls short. The projectile can do a lot of damage, but you cannot disc jump with a plasma burst- in fact, you can't knock around people much at all with the plasma, but you can with a well-placed disc. So plasma rifle falls short of the niche. This is a weapon I think needs to be changed.

And I might have to put my foot in my mouth for saying it, but I personally liked the direction Tribes Vengeance took with this weapon, turning it into an area of denial weapon. Area of denial weapons had not been done in Tribes before this (you could argue that the mortar might've been one, but mortar rounds don't linger like burner rounds did)- and the concept works great for protecting areas of an indoor base, or blanketing cap routes. It was a bit silly that the burner used energy- this is one thing I disliked about the weapon. But otherwise, adding another tool like this to the defensive utility belt could be a welcome thing if done right.

For one, the plasma rounds should travel slow, and only “explode” into a lingering fire once touching something. The fire damage should not stack (in order to prevent spamming doorways by turtles- a turtle would have to choose an area to cover with the lingering plasma, instead of laying it out all in one concentrated heap. And if he covered an entire area of the base, he'd also realize he'd be cutting off that area for personal use, too). As well, I don't think the plasma shots should travel as straight as the burner shots- they'd have to arc a little bit (not as much as the grenade, but to some degree). This would add for a bit of difficulty a defensive player would have to overcome in order to not accidentally hit himself or a teammate in the face with burning plasma.

This weapon would likely require a LOT of fine tuning, but I've always liked the idea of an area of denial weapon in Tribes. It forces players to change up their routes a bit, or otherwise address the risk vs. reward of running into an area on fire.

Shocklance
Clutch. Gimmicky. Unfair. Uneffective in the overall meta. Many things can be said about this weapon, and it makes for a pretty controversial weapon. But why not have it be controversial, it's really the only melee weapon in the game! 

The assassins choice... and deadly in the hands of people who use it well (and horrible in the hands of the inexperienced). This weapon didn't do much damage on a frontal attack, and the refire time for it is ridiculous. But a hit to the back of the head meant instant death to any player- including shielded heavys, and this is what made it a weapon of choice for many LDs. You HAD to be good at it though. If you missed a backlance, that means you just wasted a lot of time that could have been used firing another weapon without as much risk. But if you nailed a backlance, you just saved yourself a bundle of time, effort, and ammo. And backlances weren't always easy against a target who knew how to move. 
 

I'd keep the shocklance's functionality relatively similar, with one added challenge- having to hold fire to charge a shot. And only a fully charged shot could deliver a backlance. This makes the weapon just that much harder to use, and not as easy to “cheat” with. You would need to be a master of timing, opportunistic, and precise.

I come to this perspective from a varied background. I practiced with the shocklance for a few months before even becoming somewhat effective with it- I've since become rusty and horrible at it, and never use it. And I have also been on the receiving end of a backlance, but I can appreciate the difficulty it takes to do because of how much practice I had with it- so I never really considered it cheap. It really is a do-or-die weapon. You miss, you give away your position and can't fire anything for a second or so. You pretty much become cannon fodder.

Laser Rifle 
The laser rifle was the sniper rifle of Tribes. It pushed all of your suit's energy into a single shot- and a full charge on a light armor certainly meant death for the unfortunate soul. The difficulty came in waiting for your energy to recharge to take another shot, or to even jetpack out of the way. And you had to be in light armor, with an energy pack, to use it. It became a very niche weapon, used primarily by LOFs, and by the dreaded Osnipers.

There is a huge cultural component to the mentality many Tribes players harbor towards players who take the laser rifle out offensively. Although its technically a legit tactic in the game, it is frowned upon by many. I've racked my head about why I dislike Osnipers. Maybe it's because it doesn't seem to fit with the overarching metagame in competitive Tribes, it doesn't seem to server a purpose other than to distract the enemy defense. Maybe it's because it makes me feel like someone is trying to play Call of Duty or Counterstrike in a Tribes game. Maybe it's because many Osnipers went for headshots on players buying vehicles from their vehicle bay. All I know is, I'm not alone when I say: Osniping is lame.

That is why I approve of the idea of the laser rifle requiring energy AND ammo to fire, like the one in Tribes Vengeance- at the very least, it made it so shots were more precious, and an Osniper would have to take a deployable inventory along with him to do damage in any stretch of time (often to the dismay of their team). Let's not forget, LOFs are discouraged from being sniper-happy all the time too- Tribes isn't about having camping snipe wars, it's about perpetual action. Snipes should be done frugally and deliberately by the LD and LOF. Because of these reasons, I'd probably limit the ammo on a sniper rifle to a single digit number. Likely no more than 8. This admittedly would be a constraint put in place to discourage what is considered “misuse” of the weapon by a culture of players- but it likely would be the only game design decision of this kind made for this game. Aside from the ammo requirements, there would be no other changes made to this weapon. Following the KISS method sometimes is the best way to think about making weapon changes.

In short, Osnipers suck, and sniping as an LD is honorable, but sniping LDs smell bad. 

ELF
The ELF is arguably the black sheep of all of the weapons in Tribes 2. Some find it irritating, some people find it does more harm to your team than good. Most people think it's wimpy. It certainly doesn't take much motor skill to use. The fact of the matter is much of the competitive community never saw a use for the ELF- but overlook the fact that when used surgically, it can help out defense a lot.

The writers of the Tribes 2 Classic mod spent a lot of time going through each item in the game and revamping the values to ensure each item was balanced while also playing a role. They got much flak over many of these changes from passionate people- as we all know how passionate Tribes players are. One of the writers claimed he got two fairly long e-mails in the same day right before the final push for Classic- one was an argument that the ELF was worthless, and one was an argument that the ELF was overpowered. The fact that this happened just accentuates the fact that you can't please everybody all the time.

When you press fire on the ELF, the weapon uses your energy reserve to emit a beam that basically latches onto the closest player in a specified cone, and drains their energy at a pretty respectable clip. In Tribes 2 base, this weapon was devastating, because energy meant much more. Without the speeds you got in Classic, you had to rely on jetting unpredictably to stay alive- so being grounded by the ELF meant a timely death.

In Classic, speed is king. Arguably more important than energy. Because of this, competitive players have argued that the speeds that you can achieve essentially nullified the weapon because of it's limited range- that you're better off firing another weapon at a person instead of draining their energy. And the weapon is known for changing its target to a closer friendly player on a whim.

My case for the weapon is that it's great when used on enemy shield pack HO when the HO is between you and your friendly LD. All armors carry only 3 mines- and to take out a HO's shields in a timely manner, you either have to use up 2 mines for mine-discs, or have two LD on a HO at one time mine-discing. And then you have to kill the HO, often with yet another mine-disc. When a team fields many HO at you, and they are perpetually coming in, you don't have time to resupply ammo to get all the mines you need to take out those HO. You need to harm the HO.

The ELF is a great solution for this (for the team who knows how to work together). You get one person behind the HO to ELF them while the others give the HO punishment in the front. The HO loses his shields fast, can't jet away, can't traverse backwards, and is now forced to fight. Many mines are saved in the utilization of this technique. Of course, you never see competitive players doing this- they rather stick to their tried-and-true methods for HO disruption.

I like the ELF. I like the idea of a weapon that drains energy- I think it has its place in a game that is all about movement, when jetting is a huge factor to movement. I will agree that the way the ELF does its thing could be changed to be more effective, and not have the risk of being as detrimental to your fellow teammates. And require more precision motor skill than simply just pressing the fire button. Some aiming should be involved here.

While the changes I've thought of thus far for weapons have been relatively simple, this one is a bit more complex. Remember when I mentioned I had an idea for the blaster? This is where this comes in- the idea of coupling both the blaster and ELF together into one energy weapon. Combining two weapons into one of course means you have one less weapon to work with in the game. But this weapon would fill a niche and be great at what it does- stopping shield HO.

My idea is that the weapon would be a charged weapon- holding fire charges a shot, pulling energy from your reserve. The longer you charge it, the larger the shot, the slower the projectile moves, but also the more damage it inflicts. The projectiles pass through shields. And a fully charged shot has the capability of completely draining its target's energy pool. You can decide to fire the weapon like a semi-auto, clicking rapidly to make many pea shots at a player- this would essentially make it function like an assault rifle. Or you could decide to charge up a huge slow-moving energy blob that fizzles out a player's energy and leaves him a sitting duck. Voila, the ultimate shield HO disrupting weapon, that still requires skill to use.

I'm going to apologize right here and now for turning the piece on the ELF into an essay...

Missile Launcher
When I was a fresh face to Tribes, I absolutely hated the missile launcher. I hated the fact that I had to always carry flares. I hated the fact that if I ever tried to use another grenade and used my jets, I was met by a high-pitched siren and shortly after by a missile to the face. I hated how it seemed like the weapon required no skill to use.

Of course, this was back in base, when I humped my jet key to no end. Since then, players have jumped to classic and can move faster, and I've learned better energy management. I just recently learned that you can only be locked onto if your energy reserve falls below your heat gauge- whether this was a feature in Classic or something they implemented in Base is beyond me, but a nice thing to know regardless. Missiles don't bother me so much- it's just something I've taken to be a part of the game: if you're going to cap, you're likely gonna carry flares. But I won't lie, I've often wondered what kind of grenade I would take with me capping if I didn't need flares. It would probably change the meta quite a bit, all the way from the game at the stand, to the base defense game. Think of all of the things that would change if you didn't have to worry about missiles.

I've been on the fence on whether or not the missile launcher needs to be changed from Tribes 2 Classic. After all, it does require your reticule to be on a target for a second or two, so in some sense it requires “skill”. It's pretty much the only other weapon you can rely on to take out base assets from a distance, besides the mortar (and mortars can bounce off assets, making them unreliable when firing at assets on a small floating platform). And it's the only weapon that can deter vehicles (though it was horrible at actually killing them when there was a skilled pilot behind the wheels).

There was one concept for a rocket launcher a respected member of the community had recently come up with, that seems relatively sane compared to some of the more exotic ideas out there. And it would be simple, too. The rocket launcher wouldn't need a lock to fire, and the rocket would travel straight- until something with a heat signature was in it's path. It would then track the object, and continue to tail it until it hit the object, or found an object with a hotter path to follow. The rocket would travel pretty fast (fast enough to reach flying vehicles), but its turn radius would be pretty narrow. This would require the user of a rocket launcher to lead its target, and make sure nothing with a stronger heat signature was in its path. 

On the upside, the rocket could now be fired dumb-fire on stationary assets. Flares could still be used to sway the missile away, but it wouldn't ensure the rocket would always hit the flare- with it's limited turn radius, the rocket could potentially drive straight into the ground in an attempt to track the flare (meaning that using a flare to stop a rocket might not always be the best solution for base defense, because it could cause the rocket to fly into something else at your base). A capper would no longer need flares to shake a rocket. But the capper and the shrikes would have to make evasive maneuvers to get off the rocket's path. The rocket launcher would still have a fairly slow refire rate, so the fact that the rocket initially travels straight would not mean it would be used in place of the disc.

Of course, this is just one idea for the rocket out of many. I recall many ideas being thrown into the mix at the Ascension forums when we were talking about changing it, and none of them really grabbed me. The question is, what would a good alternative to the rocket launcher's current functionality? If it even needs to be changed at all? Maybe it's good to have missile launchers the way they are, in order to “keep cappers honest” and refuse them extra firepower when they don't need it.

Mortar 
This was another weapon I hated the ever loving crap out of when I was new to Tribes. Fast forward to this year, when I used the mortar weapon in Tribes Ascend and complained that it was horribly underpowered, and you can see my perspective has changed a lot. The mortar is a huge part of the overarching meta in Tribes. A mortar is essentially a grenade launcher with a longer refire rate, a longer fuse, but a huge blast radius, and the ability to obliterate most everything in its range. It's the reason that the primary objective of Tribes is jested to be “Capture the Flag, and Stop the Heavys”. A heavy has a lot to be worried about- he is essentially a walking mini-boss, everyone wants a piece of him, because he is the only one who can carry around a mortar. He is slow, he is big, he is clumsy, and there are many ways that he can die. But he is relied on to take base assets out, and if he is caught in the same room as the mortar he just fired when it goes off, he adds himself to the list of it's victims. Sure, you can kill people easily with the weapon. It's not an especially “hard” weapon to kill people with- but that's not the point. The skill required to use the weapon lies it's utilization.

This is one weapon I wouldn't mess with. The only thing I would change is it's blast-radius. A mortar should not be able to take out the entire room in the Stonehenge base- it should take out most of it, but not all of it. Here is another place Tribes Vengeance did something right- the blast radius was just right in Vengeance. Not too big, but not too painfully small (like in Ascend). It was “just right”. 
 

In Conclusion 

For the most part, I love the weapons in Tribes. It's a huge factor of what Tribes what it is. But there is always work that needs to be done. But changes shouldn't happen for the sake of change (a pattern we are seeing in many games these days)- it needs to aimed at improving the functionality that is already there. Sometimes changes should be simple. Sometimes, a difficult situation arises that allows for more complex answers. But the final gameplay experience should always be on the forefront of your mind.

So I just shared my ideas, what about you? Do you have any idea of how you'd refactor and balance the weapons? What weapons really worked, and what didn't? Do you still hate the ELF? Really, you do? Why? :( 

Seriously though, any constructive comments are welcome here, let's keep the ball rolling!

 

Light Defense Guide

Forward

This "Light Defense Guide" is the collective effort of StormcrowIV and Enigma, two kind high-level LOFs who have long played Tribes 2 competitively, and still do to this day. The guide first came in the form of multiple thread posts, and I have put forward my best efforts to merge and organize the posts together into one tangible article.

Not only does this guide provide a newblood Tribes player everything he needs to know to be a solid light defensive player, it speaks volumes about the metagame of the most popular form of Tribes still being played today (Tribes 2 Classic), and the metagame's underlying structure- a structure that should be respected by any faithful successor to the Tribes name. That is why I found it important to post this guide on this blog, and why I will endeavor to post other guides up on this blog that further illustrate what the metagame of a Tribes game should look like.

I will add, I do not agree with everything Stormcrow says here (ecspecially when he mentions the use of only certain weapons) but he does good to mention at the end that this is just his playstyle he developed after years of playing, and everyone "works in their own ways". I commend him for this.

The guide is mostly the writing of Stormcrow, with a few wise assertions made by Enigma added where appropriate. So without further ado:

Light Defense Guide

Basic Positions
There are two primary players in Tribes 2 Classic CTF: the flag D and the flag O.

The flag O is the capper or "FC". He grabs the flag and gets it back to his base via numerous routes, loadouts, and clearing methods.

The flag D is the LOF or HOF, and he stands opposed to the capper. For this guide, I'll be discussing the LOF only. His sole purpose in life is to see the capper, determine the capper's plan for taking the flag, and foil that plan without compromising his position on the flag.

Everything else in the game exists to support or distort these two positions.

The primary enemies of the LOF are HO and LO.

HO are there to clear the LOF by spam (firing from long range, usually with the mortar) or point clearing (getting into the LOF's face and tearing him to pieces-this is usually timed with the enemy capper).
LO are there to distract the LOF by making him compromise his position so that the capper can come in and grab on an uncontested flag stand, or to kill the LOF, so the capper can grab an uncontested flag.

With that groundwork laid out, let's get back to business.

Light Defense

When you are playing light defense, you are either playing as regular LD, or as a LOF.

Equipment

An LD should carry a CG, spin, GL, and flares.
An advanced LD might also incorporate concs, frags, and a sniper rifle (depending on the team he's playing with and against)
Note: NO LD should carry a shocklance or ELF. Ever. If you are not considered a godsend with the weapon, don't do it unless specifically told to for certain situations (Jagged Claw, or standoffs on indoor MMD, for example). Yes, it can be useful, and yes, there are times when it will help you. There are 9x as many times where any other weapon would have been more useful for your role, however. The shocklance can be a clutch mechanical weapon, but dynamically, it is horrifically weak.

Role

The role of the LD is twofold: negate enemy offense and chase enemy flag carriers. The single greatest way to sabotage your defense is to play on or near the flag as an LD. You will never help your LOF or HOF by clogging up the flag stand. You will help them by distracting or killing enemy offensive players trying to kill and distract them.

The LD must aggressively pursue spamming HO.

Note that I say pursue, not necessarily kill. Killing is the most effective way to get a HO off a hill for a period of time, but the longer he's shooting at you, the more he isn't shooting at your LOF. THIS is why the shocklance is a bad weapon for LD. The time you're setting up to SL the HO in the back, he's still killing your LOF and clearing your flag. If you miss, you're screwed within the duel (you have to wait before changing weapons, while the HO will probably starting chaining you at very close range, bye bye!) your LOF is now screwed because the HO got to fire more stuff at him, and now you're dreadfully out of position. Remember: you're a defender. Whatever the offense wants to do, is probably bad. Stop him from doing what he wants as quickly as you can without sacrificing your objective (protecting the LOF).

The LD must aggressively pursue incoming HO who might point clear.

Get these guys off their routes so their timing is messed up (in case the timing was coordinated with a capper) and slow them down to kill them easier. Nothing like a HO flopping at the bottom of a hill eating a rain of mine discs.

Note: These two mean you must be a talented and resourceful dueler. HO are completely overpowered from a numbers perspective and you have to defeat them. You don't have time to suit up before pursuing these guys all the time, either. You have to inflict massive amounts of damage to the right players within a very short period of time.

The LD must adapt to the team being played.

If this team employs a medium to chaingun the LOF to death, then charging out to attack a HO spammer 500m away as the medium skies in isn't a good idea.

The LD must chase flag carriers.

The LD's job is to clean up after the LOF, as well. If a capper gets out, you need to break off your HO-killing and chase the FC down. Again, the shocklance takes away a vital weapon slot for this task. Do not snipe, unless you were designated as a snipe LD. If you do, you are no longer chasing, which your team was counting on you to do. DJ to an interception (never go directly after the capper) and get the capper off his route. If you don't have a hilariously easy MD on him, you should be chaining the whole way. The single lucky shots here and there add up quickly, especially when you're talking about a capper taking DJs to get home. You won't be the only one chaining, either. If you slow down the capper, your team will have a better chance of setting up an egrab or an offensive return.

The LD must escort the flag carrier home.

If you're chasing an FC and your team grabs the flag, stop and cover your flag carrier.

This is pretty debatable, but here's why I think this is the better option:

To succeed against the enemy flag carrier, you have to ski into the enemy base alone, fight off their defense and spawning offense alone, kill the FC alone, then fight through turrets etc to return the flag...after you just DJ'd twice and ran out of ammo chasing the guy down.

To succeed when escorting your flag carrier, you have to distract or kill 2-3 light chasers (who weakened themselves with DJs) with the help of your teammates.

If you return your flag, your defense is unorganized and will be unable to defend it because of the instability of the game that occurs when chasing an enemy across the map and getting a clutch e-grab. If the enemy team has another capper waiting in the wings (I promise they almost always will), then you just gave them a free cap, and nothing you just did was worthwhile. If you escort your carrier home, you still have their flag (so you prevented them from scoring [which is the point of the defense!!!] and the game goes to stand-off-a stable form of the game-and things move from there.

The LD must be vigilantly aware.

This is most important. The LOF can't see everything. Call out cappers and LO with priority. Give directions (left right, back front) and whether they are setting up or going in (EX: "Capper setting up back route." "Capper right, now"). You're there to help the LOF, and the LOF's main asset is knowledge. If you give that information, through sensors or your own reporting, you are being a massive help.

LOF (Light On Flag)

Being a LOF is very hard work, but it's incredibly exciting and satisfying to excel at. It's like T2 as a whole. You'll get your ass kicked at first, but with enough work and practice, you WILL know that there's nothing better out there. I honestly believe that there is no better position, no better game, no better feeling than shutting down an enemy flag O. You're the most exposed player-the entire enemy offense is gunning for you-and you're the only one who stands directly opposed to the only player who can score points in a game of T2 CTF. You are the shit. Here's how to make the most of it.

Equipment

Weapons

A LoF should carry a CG, spin, and a shocklance, sniper rifle, or grenade launcher. This heavily depends on how his team is built up and, more importantly, what the LOF needs to get the job done.

CG and spin are basics.

The shocklance is good for guys who can't yet body block exceptionally well. It gives you a ton of reach and will either stop, throw off, or slow down incoming cappers when shot in the front. Do NOT go for back lances on incoming cappers. It's a show trick, nothing more. Stonehenge is a great SL map. The small window of a flag stand means that an SL shot on a light will almost always send a capper into the wall. That's assuming you go forward, of course. I'll cover that in a bit.

The grenade launcher is a solid weapon that great for chasing and self defense against HO coming in to attack you.

The sniper rifle lets you clean up your own mistakes. It's also highly distracting. Do NOT do NOT do NOT be a sniper. Be a sniping LOF if you must. If you spend more than half a second throwing a snipe at someone, don't snipe anything except a guy carrying your flag. It has uses, but seriously, the LOFs who carry and frequently use sniper rifles have practiced a very, VERY long time. Awareness will always be more valuable to your team than the couple of points of damage you're inflicting, while draining your energy, compromising your position, giving your location away.

Grenades

A LOF should carry flares, frags, or concs.

Flares are always a great, safe bet. Good for chasing and keeping your assets alive, you can't go wrong with flares.
Frags are good for nade+mine throws at range, and for self-defense.
Concs, same thing, but concs are harder to use.

Concs can cripple a HO at short range by stripping their pack, but they are incredibly inconsistent at doing so. The real value of concs comes from their knock-back, which IS consistent. If you get a conc to explode within 5m of an enemy capper, he will never grab your flag on-route. This is the grenade I switched to when I decided that I needed another tool, and it hasn't let me down since I invested in the time to learn the loooong fuse and long distance throw. Throw up and at an angle. ~40 degrees upward while jumping forward= ~70m detonation. Draw a mental map of where the capper will be there, throw accordingly, laugh.

Once you learn that, try it with nade+mines. These do damage in addition to huge knockback, but the mine can be shot in your face and backfire. Like the sniper rifle, these things can be distracting, and I'd recommend mastering the basic techniques (covered below) before worrying about this stuff. Stick with flares to start.

Role

The role of the LOF is the most simple in principle, but the hardest in practice; keep the flag out of enemy hands.

The LOF must know proper LOFing techniques.

Enigma says:  

As a LOF you always want to keep your head on a swivel, you need to know the primary capping lanes for the map and keep glancing back and forth while being aware of immediate threats and dodging fire. Just being around the flag is important, but you need to be around the flag to prevent those grabs at the right moment. The more knowledge you have of enemy positions, the better you can judge when you need to be at the flag. As a LOF you're extremely vulnerable, so being directly on the flag is often not wise. You need to be off flag, ideally in the path of the enemy's strongest route, and with some ability to avoid splash damage (bump in the terrain, on a spire, behind a little hill, etc) but able to quickly respond with a mine disc on the stand.

There are three techniques a LOF can reliably use to keep enemy flag cappers from capturing his flag. Two techniques use a foreward position, and one technique uses a backward position.

Before jumping into that, let me walk you through a pretty simple guide to how capper/LOF relations work. All of these variables can be mixed around and added or removed, but these are the most basic steps to a flag grab.

1. The capper sees LOF and spams GL on his approach.
2. LOF sees capper, moves into position to BB, MA, or MD.
3. Capper throws mine anticipating to MD LOF's actions.
4. LOF throws mine anticipating capper's actions.
5. Discs are fired.
6. Someone dies, someone wins. Note that the someone who dies isn't always the one who loses.

Watch Enigma's video here and focus on how quickly these steps occur. I'm not even talking about seconds here. This video also gives amazing examples of every technique I'm about to discuss.

Let's go through the techniques. First, the forward techniques:

1. Body Block (BB) This involves going forward into the capper's flight path and stopping or severely hindering his movement with your own player model. This is the surest method of pissing a capper off because it's the easiest to clear for the capper. If you miss your BB, the enemy carrier has a free shot at your flag. You are very vulnerable to being MA'd or MAMD'd. It also compromises your position, so even if you block one capper, you are unable to stop a second capper because of the movement it requires. You can add to this method, however, by chaining the capper as he comes in, or by trying to MA him in addition to setting up for the BB.

Once you get better as a LOF, you'll get a feel for how to approach a BB and when you should and shouldn't do it against lights. Against medium cappers, it's very very helpful, because an MA won't always throw them off. Against HO cappers, it's necessary because it's the only way to stop a HO's movement.

2. Mid Air/ Mid Air Mine Disc (MA/MAMD) This involves jumping forward and attempting to MA the flag carrier as he is coming in for your flag. It's tricky to do reliably, but it's very effective. MAing a capper moving in a mostly straight line is all about timing and confidence. If it feels right, do it. But if he's too far away, you'll probably miss, and if he's too close, you'll probably get a mine disc to the face before you can fire. Likewise, you have to anticipate when the capper will throw his mine and/or fire so that his shot doesn't destroy your mine, taking you out of play. It's very tricky when you get into this contest with the better cappers because they WILL anticipate your shot, so you have to vary your timing to keep the upper had. MAs will stop lights and will normally stop mediums. MAMDs are immediate stops on lights (death) and mediums, and will stop HO grabs if they are placed properly. Yes, you can (and will have to learn to) place mine discs on incoming players. An example of this can be found here.

Notice that I account for my speed, the flag's movement, how the terrain will affect the flag movement, the enemy player's movement (assessed via where the flag will be), and throw my mine and fire the disc so that it separates the enemy from the flag (keeping him from picking it up) without throwing the flag so far out of my own path that I cannot return the flag.

You have to practice your MDs until you can do those kinds of calculations in a heartbeat and make those kinds of shots before you realize it needs to happen, because that's what being a LOF is all about. It's the fullest integration of reflexive chess and once you get your feet in, you'll never be okay with any other kind of gameplay.

And now, the rearward technique:

3. MD on Flag Stand This involves moving back-out of range of the capper's shot-or up, to get a better angle on the stand, in order to MD the flag as the capper is grabbing it. Difficulty comes from the capper anticipating your mine and discing it while it's still in your face, or you hovering in a single spot and getting MA'd by the capper. Both things will prevent you from making the stop. Varying your timing and moving, rather than hovering, will ensure the success of this technique. Furthermore, make sure that you are moving downward as you throw your mine. This adds your momentum to the throw, getting the mine away from your player faster. This makes the MD easier, and it drastically shortens the time the capper can use your mine against you.

This is the safest and easiest way of stopping a light flag carrier. It will cripple medium cappers as well, so it's very effective, and the vast majority of your stops should be with this technique. It does nothing against HO, however.

You can always mix and match these techniques, too. Go forward for a BB then MA the carrier. If you miss the MA, you still have him BB'd. Jump backward into his flight path while still MDing the flag stand. Both of these things double your chances of preventing the capper from grabbing.

My personal stops will often involve throwing a mine+hand nade forward, then attempting either MAMDing or MDing the stand while flying backward over it. I'll also try to mix it up by MDing 5 meters in front of or behind the stand, so the capper is not expecting it. Subtle things like that will always keep the capper on his toes, and his shots are only a little easier than yours-a little doubt in your enemy's head goes a long way.

Perform these proper techniques at an incredibly proficient level.

Enigma says:  

There are trade-offs for body blocking (BB) and mine discing (MD) that you have to take into account given the situation. If your enemy is in light energy you know that a mine disc will take them out, miss it and they're out scott free with 100% health. If your target is capping medium energy, it will take 2 mines and a disc to kill them. This is really only an option if your foe is dumb and lets you stack an extra mine on the stand or if you have a backup LOF.  

Body blocking is the safest method of stopping caps, it can also be the hardest as it requires precise positioning. It puts your reticle on the direct path of the capper which guarantees damage with chaingun. Even if you miss the BB you can easily chew up 50% of a light's HP or more. BBing is also a very easy way to get mine-disced by the oncoming capper and that is often a good thing. I consider it a victory when the capper gets killed or knocked off course from the splash damage off me. 

If the enemy is heavy capping, they not only have the hit points to shrug off a mine-disc on the stand, but if they get out cleanly with the flag they can almost always get home with their hitpoint buffer. BBing a heavy capper is the safest bet, but even if you're successful you have a heavy in your shit ready to punish you and clear the flag for a delayed light capper. You need to be quick, clever, and try to disc the heavy before he discs you and be ready to fall back if need be. 

Always try to put yourself in the path of the capper, even if you go for a mine disc you can BB them on their out-route as seen below.

2 LOFs can often interfere with each other by setting off early mines. The safest method of preventing grabs is to mix it up and have one BB and one MD. Worst case scenario, a body blocker that gets MA'd will put the capper's disc in refire cooldown to prevent them from stopping the MD on the stand from the backup LOF.

The LOF must stay alive.

A dead LOF isn't a LOF. You have to preserve yourself. Don't die to spam in order to stay on the flag half a second longer when there isn't a capper coming in. If you see a capper, then do what it takes to make the stop, even if it mean dying (back to what I said about how dying doesn't necessarily mean losing for the LOF). This means you have to...

The LOF must be aware of EVERYTHING.

A LOF has to be aware of everything going on.

- He has to keep mental tabs on which cappers he knows are set up on fast routes because he hasn't seen them in awhile.
- He has to keep track of spamming HO so he can avoid their mortars.
- He has to be aware of shifts in enemy offensive tactics so he can call for adjustments. If I see that a HO stops spamming, I know that HO is coming in to attack up close and I call in an LD to stop him. If the enemy team stops spamming, I know that a capper may be coming in. If they stop spamming and start sending LO, I know I need to keep an LD close by to cover the flag when I die. This stuff is what makes or breaks a LOF. Without this grasp of the game, LOF is an impossible position.
- A LOF has to keep track of cappers and decoys.
- If a capper grabs and darts to the left, the LOF has to know if the LD over there is dead or too busy fighting a HO to chase the FC. If so, the LOF knows that taking a snipe shot takes priority over maintaining his position.

The LOF MUST to know where the enemy flag is.

If you fail to return a flag as your friendly capper is coming in, you have probably cost your team a cap. If you know your team has the flag and the enemy carrier gets out, you need to know whether your next move needs to be to take a pot shot snipe at the FC or if it needs to be a lined-up shot in defense of your carrier.

Enigma says:
When the flag is in the field you have more control over the flag game because it opens up many options on defending. You can disc the flag against an object or flag stand to block off potential cap routes, or leave it in the field to force cappers off their practiced routes. Mine disc the capper as he tries to grab, return the flag just before the capper grabs, or you can disc the flag away when a capper is incoming and watch him fly right by. The latter being a great solution when the enemy capper is medium or heavy armored and a single mine disc will not instantly kill them. It does take a little practice and timing though. The biggest benefit to playing the flag in the field is the timed return. Wait until just before your capper will cap to return the flag. You’ll be preventing the enemy from getting an emergency grab or forcing a standoff.

Closing Thoughts

In poker terms, being good in T2 is more about rigging the deck than winning hands. If you have a bad CG, don't get into a short-range flying duel. If you don't like getting MD'd, stay fast or stay off the ground. If you don't like getting sniped, stay low and fast and strafe at the apex.

A lot of LOF play centers around preventing the capper from using this philosophy. You want to reduce the capper's options as best as you can so that he has to play at your table, rather than letting the enemy offense run the show (which is what normally happens).

Reviewing and Thinking Critically

Enigma says: 

The best advice I can give you is to watch your demos and be super critical about your decisions, positioning, weapon selection, and make note of anything that's getting by you too much for comfort and how you can counter it. Every time you play you should be trying to work on something.

Economy of Movement

Demo review sessions are what I attribute to my rise from silly sniper to LOF and a specific concept from either Darkstrand or Fling always stuck with me. They called it economy of movement. Essentially, you have to be decisive about what you're going to do. If you go forward to face the capper, great, you have tools. If you go backward to face the capper, great, you have tools there too. If you hesitate or start forward then doubt yourself and back-pedal, you're eating a mine disc on the stand.

You must make a decision and commit to it. Once you make this a habit, your demo reviews will get even more helpful, because you'll be finding concrete mistakes to learn from, rather than realizing you should done something, or you, know... anything.

Getting MD'd on the stand tells you you should have moved. Duh.

Getting MD'd by your own mine because you didn't anticipate the capper's shot gives you substantial insights into how a capper shoots, letting you adjust for next time.

 

Choosing your Playing Style

I'd also like to point out that Enigma and I are both successful LOFs despite having different approaches to doing things. He carries flares and chains cappers as they come in, doing a guaranteed amount of damage while I prefer the all-or-nothing nade+mine combo. Do what fits your style and do whatever it takes to keep your flag out of enemy hands. No matter how goofy it is, if it works, it works. I have to say that a lot of the conventional stuff is conventional for a reason, however. There's not a lot of trail-blazing to be done in an eleven year-old game, but everyone works in their own ways. I'm offering the strategies that work for me and the things I was taught to do. How you use it and mold it to fit your playing style is up to you.

How "Ball Sense" Applies to Tribes

I recall roughly a year ago when many Tribes players were still amped and hopeful for the release of Tribes:Ascend, when a post was made on the "Tribes:Ascend" thread of the Tribalwar forums by SmoothP. It was essentially an essay about "Ball Sense" and it's relation to the "essence of Tribes". It has stayed fresh in my memory even a year later. I think it's important to post here, because of its clarity and its truth- "Ball Sense" is present in Tribes to an extent not found in other shooter games, and it's because of this fact that the game is loved to this day.

Football, Baseball, Soccer, Hockey, Basketball, Lacrosse, Rugby, Handball, Hurling... What do all these things have in common? They are team sports played with balls. As soon as children learn to walk, they start playing with balls. Throwing them, kicking them, catching them, hitting them. Ball games are part of the human experience, our brains are wired for them. As hunters we used projectiles to take down prey, and even in ancient cultures we find evidence of using balls in recreational sport.

In Sweden, they have a term that translates into English as "Ball Sense". We all as humans have some innate amount of ball sense, and begin improving it from birth. When throwing away a piece of trash, people often throw or shoot it into the trash can. Our ball sense is what lets us make that shot without computing how far away the trash can is, how fast and in what direction our chair is rolling, or how high we need to arc the shot in order to get it over the corner of the desk. An average person may not be able to throw a football 50 yards and hit a wide reciever running at full steam, or make a jump shot while falling down after getting bumped in midair, but we can *understand* and *appreciate* these acts because of our ball sense.

The essence and beauty of Tribes is that it speaks to these innate human qualities. It engages our ball sense, and stimulates us at a primal level. Watching even pro level CoD is fairly boring... "Oh, he ran around another corner and held down his trigger and shot that guy with a machine gun. *Yawn*" But watching quality Tribes play? It's a highly engaging experience. Seeing the shots, the timing, the skill... it's in our nature to appreciate what's on display! And playing Tribes at a competent level? It's Zen-like. You can "feel" the motion of your player and your opponent. "See" the future before it happens, in an ancient and primal part of your mind. "Know" when at what angle to fire that disc to hit just the right spot at just the right time. Without doing any computations... our minds were *built* with the ability to make those computations without thinking! Playing Tribes brings out those parts of our mind that let us take down wolves with a sling shot, buffalo with a bow and arrow, deer with a javelin. We were made for this!

There is something deeply engaging about making that disc shot, or dropping that perfect mortar round, or lobbing that perfect grenade. Much more engaging than twitch aiming a machine gun or locking on a missle. When a gamer first sees CoD, or CS, they may think, "Hmm, that looks pretty fun, and shooting things is cool." When a gamer first sees Tribes they think, "Wow! That is the coolest freaking FPS I've ever seen." They find it entralling. Because of our innate ball sense, they can immediately appreciate a great shot, even while its in flight. I know, I've introduced at least a dozen people to Tribes.
And that is why *every* loadout needs a primary weapon that is based on ball sense. Because ball sense is the essence of sport... of Football, of Baseball, of Soccer, of Hockey, of Basketball... of Tribes.

- SmoothP 

When I read this for the first time, I smiled and nodded, pretty much the whole way through. And when I take a step back and think to myself "Hey, this is about Tribes", I realize that the name of the game is a piece of deserving poetry.

It was because of a completely unintentionally borked physics system of the original game that players will able to ski and jet to achieve crazy speed- and it was over months of online play that a playstyle involving shooting slow moving explosives at fast aerial targets was developed and refined. Mid-air discs and long-arc explosives are celebrated even to this day, in the current title, Tribes:Ascend.

And now, Tribes players are very much like the tribal warriors written in the lore of human history, relying on primal instinct and hand-eye coordination. We don't throw spears at prey and predator to ensure we survive another day, but our "Ball Sense" is "alive" in some sense of the word when we score that mid-air disc to ensure our survival in the game. (You could also argue that we are just as brutal and territorial as tribal warriors are- just look at the amount of bashing and trolling that occurs on our community forums.) There is no other name more appropriate for this game than Tribes.

 I will admit, mid-air frag videos were one of the very first things that caught my attention about Tribes (though I stayed for many more reasons). We should never overlook how important Ball Sense is to the essence of Tribes. Because I can say surely, when you get to that point where you are confident that every shot you take will hit the enemy- when you can nail every MA you try for- it surely is an incredible experience. It makes you feel like a beast is inside of you.

Weapon Loadouts & Decision Making

Weapon Loadouts & Decision Making

One of the things I knew I wanted to address when brainstorming topics for Tribes Papers was the freedom of choice inherit in Tribes and Tribes 2, and how it played a big role in drawing people in and forming the tribal psyche. Specifically I want to talk about weapon choice, and how it affected the gameplay. I'm going to address what choice really means in the context of game design theory, and why it's definition should matter to the people who play Tribes. Finally, I will explain why I believe the system that the first two Tribes games uses works the best for an online shooter game, and I will offer comparisons to weapon systems that other games use.

Decisions, Problems, and Choices

Game design is about “designing decisions”. There is a lot of writing in the realm of game design dealing with decision making in roleplaying or otherwise story-driven games. But given how long online gaming has been around, it is a bit shocking how little work there is out there dealing with making decisions in online games. And decisions (according to James Portnow and Daniel Floyd of the Escapist) come in two forms- problems, and choices. And as Portnow explains, it is very important to make the distinction between the two. Most people use the terms interchangeably all the time. 
 

Problems

In real life, problems are the obstacles that lay between you and your goal. By the same token, in games, problems direct players towards their goal, whatever that may be. Choices let the player choose their goal. Every time a player is presented with a clearly defined goal, and the gameplay decisions are made in order to achieve that goal, those decisions are problems. On the other hand, choices are when a player has to choose between two things of equal or incomparable value. With problems, there is always a correct answer, and you must problem-solve to arrive at that answer. Choices do not have correct answers, and therefore are based on preference from the player.

 

Choices

Apple or Orange? Roses or Lilies? Chocolate or Vanilla? Does it even matter? These are examples of choices in a game. In traditional RPG games choices often present themselves as ethical choices, or as a choice between two weapons of separate but equal value (and this is the part I will get to later). Games generally have fewer choices than problems, but it's important to make the distinction. Often times people like to reduce choices to problems with a clear right-answer- and you can say this is an adaptive and common-sense approach to choices. We run into many choices without a clear answer every day in our real lives- what car to buy, what career path to take, where to live- things that you simply can't know a right answer to.

The problem that comes with building choices into games is that it normally takes a whole lot of effort to do so. No developer is going to spend hours creating the content for what happens if you say “No” if the game is based around you saying “Yes”. Also, often times rewards are built into a certain choice that make it far more favorable over another choice- and then the choice becomes a problem. Why not help this old man if he is going to give you a lot of money or items, and there is no gain for saying no? This happens in games all the time. 
 

Why the Distinction?

As I mentioned before, choices happen in real life all the time and we often have to live with the choices we make- this is a huge part of “the human experience” . Choices allow us to express ourselves to the outside world and are an example of free will. For games to appeal at an emotional level, they need to offer choice at least to some degree.

Another reason why choice is important to shooter games in particular is because of the motor skill involved in playing them over other games. Weapons in shooter games can only be as effective as the player using the weapon is at using them, and this is a fact a lot of people forget. These people often “prescribe” the best loadout or best way to do things as if it were a problem to be solved, when it is instead a choice based on preference. 
 

When Choices Became Problems

I've seen various things said by Tribes veterans, who have been here since the beginning, that I believe can be attributed to this common mistake people tend to make. Some veterans have said things along the lines of “I don't just want Tribes 1 to be brought back again, I want 1999 to be brought back again.” In other words, they want the feeling of experimentation they had at the dawn of internet gaming (when everything was new) to be brought back again. When skiing was just discovered, and people were learning different ways to play the game based on fast-paced movement. Back then, what to do wasn't so clear.

Vets have also said “All the strats in the game are war-proven now, there is nothing new to see.” As Tribes players began making names for themselves, different strategies and tactics became emphasized over others, changing decisions that were once choices into problems. There is now a “correct” or most efficient way to play. You didn't rely on mid-air discs to take someone out while dueling, you aimed for ground-shots and used the chaingun while in the air. You didn't rely on teamwork and flag passes to get the flag home, you relied on a fast capper who was clutch and could bring the flag home every time. You didn't use a bomber to take out enemy defense, you used spamming heavy offense. These are all examples of the mentality many vets harbor.

This is why any "fresh" game is initially appealing to a player- they offer various choices to experiment with. You could argue the reason why Tribes Ascend or Tribes Vengeance tried to break the mold so much was in order to get people out of the mindset of “This is the correct way to play.”

And personally, I feel as if this mentality becomes a weakness to some Tribes players to this day. Some people are so set in a way of doing things that they aren't willing to adjust to uncertain conditions, and try to change what isn't working. The best teams in the recent Tribes 2 Draft Tournaments have been the teams that have improvised more- not allowing cap routes to be camped, not allowing their team to be predictable to the enemy team.

The one popular remaining Tribes 2 server “Goon Haven” has many good examples of people making choices, and not relying on the “problem-solving” of other competitive players. Some use medium armors and det packs religiously. Some have become expert bomber pilots, arguably better than some HO playing competitively. I personally think at least once defensive player on a team should carry an ELF as it's more effective in taking out multiple enemies at once than using 3 mines on a heavy at one time, when you can only carry 5. One particularly vocal person in the Tribes community likes using mortar turrets and energy packs when he goes heavy.

You can argue about the effectiveness of all of things I have just mentioned- but the fact of the matter is, they are all choices made by people based on their preference and skill. And choices are aplenty in Tribes, and that's what gives the game so much replayability. If vets think the game has gotten boring, it's because they aren't expanding their horizons, much to their dismay. Even people in Vengeance began to fall victim to this way of thinking. Don't believe me? Try asking a group of Tribes players if the rocketpod weapon from Vengeance was underpowered or overpowered. It all has to do with preference and what the player is good at.

Weapon Choices in Tribes

Tribes has often been said to have been one of the prototypes for what online shooter games are today- and many developers behind games such as Battlefield and Planetside had been quoted as saying that they drew inspiration from Tribes. One of the many things that has been taken from Tribes was a sort of rudimentary class system. But Tribes did not have what we consider today to be a traditional class system, wherein games will have many classes with only a handful of weapons to choose from. Tribes made use of 3 simple armor classes- light, medium, and heavy. The light armor could hold 3 weapons in any order. The medium armor could hold 4 weapons in any order. And the heavy could hold 5 weapons in any order. This was known as the 3-4-5 system.

There were only minimal weapon restrictions for each class, but it set them apart a great deal. The sniper rifle could only be used by the light armor. The missile launcher could only be used by the medium and heavy armors. And the mortar cannon could only be used by the heavy armor. Besides that, the rest of the weapons in the game could be used by any of those armors. And every weapon had a special use or niche it filled (well, almost every- the plasma gun is arguable here as being very similar to the disc launcher).

I've tried to determine why a system like this was chosen- why Dynamix decided on such an open style for their game, considering there were other games being developed around the same time that used a more traditional class system. I believe it has partly to do with the original Earthsiege and Starsiege games that Tribes was a spinoff of.

Earthsiege (1994) was a mech simulation games based in the Earthsiege universe. In Earthsiege, like many mech games at the time, there was a variety of mechs you could choose from, each having different 'mounting' points to mount guns onto- many mechs used the same guns. This was very similar in other simulation games as well (for example, in the X-Wing (1994) series of games all the starfighters had the same weapons, but various weapon arrangements and different secondary weapons to set them apart). 
 
In the Earthsiege singleplayer campaign, you had to arm your mech and all of your bot teammate mechs in the most efficient manner for your playstyle considering your limited resources. Each mech only had so many mounting points, and there was only so much of every particular weapon you could use. You could decide to give every mech the same loadout, or build up each mech to play a specialized role. But the choice was there to do what you wanted- and it wasn't always clear what the best loadout was for your mechs.

Starsiege:Tribes definitely took the gameplay mechanic from this game- originally in Tribes there was only so much of every armor and weapon you could buy from an inventory station based on how many credits your team had. And of course, just like in Earthsiege, most of the weapons could be used by all the player types. It got to a point while playing Tribes online that most servers had the credit system turned off, and you could buy whatever you wanted without thinking about resources- Tribes 2 eventually did away with credits altogether.

I personally find the most enjoyment the Tribes loadout system than any other system I've seen in other games. The game gave you free reign over any of the weapons at any time you wished (granted you could get to a powered inventory station)- but while you had this ability to use all the weapons, you were constrained by having only so many weapon slots to fill and weapon restrictions based on your armor type. This is the perfect balance of freedom and constraint in my mind, and other games that fall to either side of this balance tend to be not as enjoyable to me.

Comparing Other Weapon Systems

I've tried to figure out why the Tribes system draws on me and so many others so much, and after searching my thoughts a while I believe it really does come back to the feeling of significant choice as opposed to problem-solving. There are games that offer you classes to play as, where you are restricted on how many weapons you can use based on your class, and have far fewer weapons to use when compared to the Tribes 3-4-5 system. On the other hand, many arena games offer the player all the weapons at once (usually requiring the player to find them all, but sometimes they spawn with all the weapons). Both of these systems have their flaws when it comes to limiting significant choice. I'm going to provide an impromptu graph to help visualize how the freedom of choice affects the number of significant choices you make, and I will discuss the examples below it (please keep in mind I am not claiming this to be fact, merely my way of thinking).

Strict Class-based Games

With traditional class-based games, there simply aren't enough choices in weaponry, and players are pigeon-holed into a specific role. As well, the limitation on choice is magnified by the fact that often there is a selection of weapons that often serves the role best.

There is no better example to paint this picture than Tribes Ascend, since we are talking about Tribes. No longer do we have 3 weapon slots for the light, 4 for the medium, 5 for the heavy- every “class” now only has 2 weapon slots, with very limited options of what weapons we can use for each slot based on what the role of the class is. Choice does seem to exist in the game, but often times there are loadouts that are obviously more effective than others. For example, there are 4 different combinations you can make with the Soldier class based on its weapons:

• Assault Rifle\Thumper
  
• Assault Rifle\Pistol
  
• Spinfusor \Pistol
  
• Spinfusor \Thumper

If you are to analyze each possible loadout, Assault Rifle\Thumper takes the win as the most effective loadout. Assault Rifle\Pistol gives you two bullet-based leading weapons, with nothing to use to perform a disc jump. The Spinfusor\Pistol loadout is a faithful match to AR\Thumper, but the pistol is semi-automatic requiring you to click every time, while the AR you can just spray and pray with. And Spinfusor\Thumper gives you two explosive weapons best suited towards ground-shots, with no easy capability for air-shots. AR\Thumper wins out here.

You can argue that this is a choice and not a problem, and I might give you that. It all comes down to preference, and what you are best with. But even then, with 2 weapons to pick in only 2 weapon slots, that's 4 separate weapon loadouts to choose from. For a medium in Tribes 2 that has access to 8 weapons to fill 4 weapon slots with, there are 24 different weapon loadouts to choose from- and that's if you neglect the order in which the weapons are chosen. And to most people the order they put their weapons in is sacred- that's one reason concussion grenades are feared in Tribes 2. When you factor in order, you are given 70 different weapon loadouts for the medium armor.

Even if you added up all the weapon loadout choices for the soldier, raider, and technician, this only barely scratches the surface of the number of choices offered to the medium armor in Tribes 2. When you consider the variety of grenades and packs you can use in your loadouts in Tribes 2, the differences in “choice” between Tribes 2 and Tribes Ascends becomes even greater.

While some loadouts for classes can come down to preference, some classes simply don't offer you what your preference is at all. What if you find yourself having a certain finesse and likingness towards arc weapons, but only so many classes have arc weapons? You are confined to using whatever else that class uses in order to be effective, or consider picking up new skills. And true, Tribes Ascend could eventually be built up to a point where every class has one of each 'type' of weapon, but is that really a good idea? There are already so many spinfusors in the game, so many “chainguns”, so many arc weapons- and at the end of the day, it would become a nightmare to balance if every class had everything- you would be better off getting rid of class restrictions altogether.


I'm just using Ascend as an example here, most class-based games have a similar problem when it comes to the limitation of choice.

Not Strictly Class-Based, but Still Limiting Choice

There are games that (while not catering to choice as much as Tribes did) do offer more selections than a class-based game. These are games that offer you fewer weapon slots than in Tribes, but give you more flexibility to choose what weapons you are going to use. Gears of War, Halo, Planetside, and Timesplitters are a few examples of this caliber of choice. In Gears of War and Planetside, you are limited to what weapons can fill certain slots (and in Planetside, each class only has a specific number of slots to use, while in Gears of War you can always carry one sidearm, 2 rifles, and an explosives). In Halo and Timesplitters you can only carry 2 guns, but the fact that you can carry any 2 guns leaves the loadout completely in the player's hands to decide. Halo 2 even gets bonus points for allowing akimbo, thus increasing the number of possibilities a great deal.

Tribes Vengeance falls just short of Tribes 1 and Tribes 2, based purely on its 3-3-3 loadout system. It's similar to that of its two predecessors, only with less slots for the medium and heavy classes. There is certainly more choice in T2 than in Tribes Vengeance, but this difference is much less noticeable than when comparing T2 to Tribes Ascend.

Arena-Based Shooters

On the complete other end of the spectrum, we have games that provide the player with every weapon at the same time (granted the player finds them all, or joins one of those special servers). Examples of this type of game include Half Life, Quake, Doom, and Unreal Tournament, among many many others. In most of these games each weapon has widely different purposes. You might be thinking to yourself, how is this a bad thing? You have all the weapons at one time- that is a huge amount of choices for the player! 

Right- but how is this helping the player feel like the choices they are making are significant? Choices feel like an after-thought when they feel insignificant- and there is nothing as significant as being limited to what weapons you can carry on your belt. There is a feeling of permanence to having only so many weapons that you choose on your body- it expresses how exactly you want to play. 

In a single player campaign in a traditional shooter game, often the weapon selection you have at your disposal is only an expression of how far you are into the game. Online, it may only be an expression to what weapons you ran into. If you have a certain weapon you favor over others, you might decide to camp a certain area of the map to achieve that weapon, or you may have memorized the spawn rate of the weapon- but only still, that is just one weapon, and when you are in a server packed with players, there is an increased risk you might not ever get that weapon. Players who play competitively in an arena-game do not find a level of meaningful choice found in Tribes- they pick the tool best for the job when they have it, and don't think twice about it. 
 

In Conclusion

The number of options available to you in Tribes was a big factor in why the game was appealing to me and so many others- and this fact was left by the wayside in recent years with T:V and T:A. You could literally “build your own class” and play how you wanted. This offered a freedom of choice not present in class-based shooters. And not just a freedom of choice- a freedom of meaningful choice. A meaningful choice that allowed you to express exactly how you wanted to play and what skills you were good at, and this allowed you to become the best fighter you could be out in the field. Not only this, but the choices you made (in light of arguments over how effective they were) helped shape your experience into something that was a human experience- possibly a bit rough around the edges, but an experience of “creative” decision making. Not an experience of “creativity through constraint”.