Total Biscuit on Unlocks.

[shadowmoses]

I don't feel rewarded when I get an unlock in any game. It feels incidental, almost tacked on. But when both sides are down to 10 tickets and we somehow manage to cap and win, that's a real good feeling. No unlock can give me that feeling of pride.

Bravo. This and the reference of these over used unlock systems end up being a virtual treadmill are well said.
Now if only John Gibson would unplug his ears and stop massaging his ego about the matter.

 

[AAChaoshand]

Personally, weapon unlocks to me are rediculous. I have never liked the concept and never will. I'm ok with graphical changes and unlocks after a period of time to show that your either a long standing member or good player.
Unreal Tournament 2004 was the last game I played based on the Unreal Engine and that game went smoothly. Why? No damn unlocks. Someone that has been playing for 5 weeks had the same weapons as someone that played for 1 week. The difference between the two was skill which should be what determines a game not some unlock. I'm not against graphical unlocks like a black grip or something but come on...FPS's have went down hill just as the man said.

 

[pepihoh]

Ah yes, weapons unlocks, its like buying a car and then the sales person says to you, "I am sorry sir, but you cant get the tiers until you push the car for at least 250m". I hate them, I was really hoping that RO2 will not have unlocks.

 

[derbefrier]

i never liked it much either i prefer a level playing field. having to put 30-40 hours in a game just to be competitive is stupid, and not fun. Especially if you happen to join the party late not only is everyone more skilled but there is an inherent disadvantage for being a new player built into the game. hopefully this trend will start to decline.

 

[Paas]

I hate unlocks.

-Paas

 

[Krobar]

Unlocks are good.

It gives more meaning to multiplayer.

If you play single player get more of a sense of accomplishment when you defeat the game.

With Multiplayer there is no sense of accomplishment becasue you cant finish the multi player game..there is no point in it where you can say you have beaten the game.

Atleast with un-locks it gives you some level of accomplishment.

I can see where in certain situations it can be ****ty...but generally it is good.

It is realistic, Once you survived your baptism of fire in real life you had more experience and knew what you should do in the heat of battle.

I think the unlocks and rewards etc... fit in really well with realism, on top of wanting to acheive goals in the game like, killing a certain amount of enemy etc..

The more you fight the better you get. Just like in real life.

prehaps there should be a disillusioned cynism unlock for old RO:OF players who cant stand the new players coming up and enjoying the new game more than the old one.

Bob Dylan sounds like **** - Southpark - YouTube

The Achievements are probably one of the best things about the game.

Perhaps there should be a complete and udder dumbass unlock for these new guys. Well they're pretty stupid you could probably make them pay for it. Pssst... Tripwire! Sell them a crosshair DLC for $20,000 each! Then all the of the TW staff can have diamond encrusted spinner rims on their Ferraris!

 

[Krobar]

You guys arguing against unlocks are actually very Buddist. That's the wonderful thing about capitalism, your beliefs are religious in nature and you seek to force them on the masses, but in a capitalist society, what people want supersedes what you think they should believe or feel.

But the game was distributed internationally, you imperialistic dog, the whole world is not capitalist, nor does everyone believe in capitalism. I live in the United States of America. I'm a Socialist. You have a problem? Come. At. Me.

 

[Nylle]

I bet kids tease days cant understand how we played games without unlockable content or leveling systems, they probably think that was boring. But then there were somtiing called mods and free SDK's. There where a new map popping out for DoD every day!
I'm glad TWI still takes care of its community, can't wait for all the maps and mods!

Oh, and I hope community maps will be able to play on ranked servers. Otherwise I've lost all hope.

 

[Crazyeyes24]

Oh, and I hope community maps will be able to play on ranked servers. Otherwise I've lost all hope.

I seriously doubt that... even just RESTRICTING weapon levels and unlocks will take your server off ranked status (meaning you cant even UNLOCK the weapons up to the level restriction because it doesnt GIVE the allowed weapons to the players). I don't see how community maps that aren't "approved" by TWI will allow ranked status.

If they do... I would call shenanigans.

 

[Appleshampoo]

Unlocks are good.

It gives more meaning to multiplayer.

If you play single player get more of a sense of accomplishment when you defeat the game.

With Multiplayer there is no sense of accomplishment becasue you cant finish the multi player game..there is no point in it where you can say you have beaten the game.

Atleast with un-locks it gives you some level of accomplishment.

I can see where in certain situations it can be ****ty...but generally it is good.

Respectfully disagree entirely. It's always a matter of opinion. Counter-Strike didn't have unlocks. Played that multiplayer game for years. I can list several games, but you get the point. I felt accomplished playing the game I bought and dishing out lead salads. Unlocks don't make me feel accomplished, they make me feel angry. I hate unlocks and achievements in every game. It won't stop me from playing them, but I sure despise the system.

 

[dogbadger]

Unlocks are good.

It gives more meaning to multiplayer.

If you play single player get more of a sense of accomplishment when you defeat the game.

With Multiplayer there is no sense of accomplishment becasue you cant finish the multi player game..there is no point in it where you can say you have beaten the game.

Atleast with un-locks it gives you some level of accomplishment.

I can see where in certain situations it can be ****ty...but generally it is good.

You see i can't relate to this at all - i used to play countless hours of multiplayer in many games with no achievements, unlocks stats an so on and enjoyed them immensely, the motivation to play being that they were fun.
The sense of accomplishment i got was playing better and winning battles/completing missions - this being reward enough.

In no way whatsoever has the recent trend of unlocks et al improved my enjoyment of mp gaming thou in fairness I don't think the games are as good as they used to be anymore so this opinion may be skewed.
But phaps this is the point - maybe many devs nowadays are using this current addiction to progression as the cheap and easy answer to attract today's gamers, when before they needed more creative hooks.
Maybe if such developers spent more time worrying about the actual quality of the real gaming experience, and a bit less pandering to the 'gotta catch 'em all!' mentality, we'd see PC mp gaming get back the standards set 5-10 years ago.

I just don't get unlocks - there are blatant unavoidable downsides to a system that in PvsP gives real advantages to the more experienced player, and yet the idea of 'unlock satisfaction' as an upside is lost on me.

 

[SCandChives]

Personally I don't like the unlock system (or atleast the way it's implemented) but those issues could be alleviated if servers could lock the renk for players a 25.
Still you have to admit RO2's system is better than BF3's. In RO2 any weapon will still kill if the shot hits and in the right place, regardless of stats or unlocks, those things just make it easier to hit which is still BS IMO but it doesn't stop my enjoyment. However in BF3 with regard to the vehicles, you need to kill enemies to unlock weapons without which you cannot kill enemies, and anyone that's late to the party will just get destroyed by people who already have all the unlocks hence "feeding" them more unlocks to kill even more people and it just becomes a giant catch-22 cluster****. So atleast we haven't got the worst of the worst as unlock systems go. It's not like you can grind to give your T34 a lazer cannon or whatever.

 

[DesiQ]

Personally I don't like the unlock system (or atleast the way it's implemented) but those issues could be alleviated if servers could lock the renk for players a 25.

They can lock everyone to the same rank/weapon level, but it only works on unranked servers. But since you're locking ranks, I don't think lack of stat tracking is a problem.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

actually he does mention that most unlocks are sidegrades in the games he is talking about aka "the guy with the ak 74 with IS can do as good as the guy with a tacticool ak 74".

RO2 does not even do that, upgraded guns / higher levels are GENUINELY BETTER. What he said about the vehicles completely applies to infantry in HOS. Not only do upgraded players reload and move faster, they also kill more making it harder for other lower levels to upgrade. Case in point, I can dominate the battlefield with my MG34 250 rnd belt and quick reloads. And if I am using that on russian side, what are the chances that the guy next to me with a dp 28, with a 47 round pan mag and slow reloads, high recoil, and no option to use a mg34 will get anywhere near as many kills?

 

[Gaizokubanou]

actually he does mention that most unlocks are sidegrades in the games he is talking about aka "the guy with the ak 74 with IS can do as good as the guy with a tacticool ak 74".

RO2 does not even do that, upgraded guns / higher levels are GENUINELY BETTER. What he said about the vehicles completely applies to infantry in HOS. Not only do upgraded players reload and move faster, they also kill more making it harder for other lower levels to upgrade. Case in point, I can dominate the battlefield with my MG34 250 rnd belt and quick reloads. And if I am using that on russian side, what are the chances that the guy next to me with a dp 28, with a 47 round pan mag and slow reloads, high recoil, and no option to use a mg34 will get anywhere near as many kills?

Indeed.

Unlocks should have been limited to sidegrades or cosmetics. Similar weapons that function just tad bit differently as a flavor adds diversity without really harming the meta game. Same goes for vastly different weapons that fill completely different roles. Cosmetic items, unless it somehow affects character model visibility too much, doesn't hurt either.

But we have some absurd direct upgrade in this game, with MG34 just being one of the worst example. WTF are new players suppose to do against enemies who not only have better understanding of the maps and gameplay, but have guns that just functions 20% better?

 

[Proud_God]

In all seriousness, I would like to know the reasoning from TWI to include a level-up system in this game.

Was is it because it worked in Killing Floor?
Is it really just a commercial decision to attract more players, or does TWI genuinely feel it is something that enriches their game?
Has the opinion of TWI regarding the matter changed since the release?
Do they still consider the level-up system a succes, and do they view us as a small minority that just has a hard time adapting to change?

Ah.. I fear we will never know..

 

[Drot]

I do not care level-up system, I just play and have some great matches the 40-1 server - cant see the problem

 

[SCandChives]

actually he does mention that most unlocks are sidegrades in the games he is talking about aka "the guy with the ak 74 with IS can do as good as the guy with a tacticool ak 74".

RO2 does not even do that, upgraded guns / higher levels are GENUINELY BETTER. What he said about the vehicles completely applies to infantry in HOS. Not only do upgraded players reload and move faster, they also kill more making it harder for other lower levels to upgrade. Case in point, I can dominate the battlefield with my MG34 250 rnd belt and quick reloads. And if I am using that on russian side, what are the chances that the guy next to me with a dp 28, with a 47 round pan mag and slow reloads, high recoil, and no option to use a mg34 will get anywhere near as many kills?

I was refering specifically to the stuff he said about vehicles, not about the infantry stuff. Perhaps TWI just put it in to milk the mainstream crowd of some money so when many of them leave, they can use the extra money to make the game better or something. Don't pay too much attention, this is just a theory. Still, sneaky devs, I'm on to you.

 

[affenjunge]

In all seriousness, I would like to know the reasoning from TWI to include a level-up system in this game.

Was is it because it worked in Killing Floor?
Is it really just a commercial decision to attract more players, or does TWI genuinely feel it is something that enriches their game?

I think it's maybe all of it. But I'm quite sure one of the most important reasons why it is in RO2 is that it really worked in KF. I mean you can argue that KF really profits from it and actually make it a better game.

But I think it was a mistake to apply it to RO2. In KF you play cooperativly against AI where in RO2 you play against humans. This is a big difference.

So yes, the progress system don't belong in RO2. Hoping for mods to fix it.

 

[Bereskarn]

While I agree with a lot of what he says, you guys shouldn't make it a habit to take Total Biscuit seriously. He's basically a more hipster version of Yahtzee (take that as you will) that whines a lot more and has a really inflated ego.

But the game was distributed internationally, you imperialistic dog, the whole world is not capitalist, nor does everyone believe in capitalism. I live in the United States of America. I'm a Socialist. You have a problem? Come. At. Me.

Socialism is doomed to always fail because of corruption.