Showing posts with label weapons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weapons. Show all posts

Monday, October 15, 2012

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!

 

Thursday, May 31, 2012

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”.