Former Socom player looking to give some feedback.

[TOMBSTONE4U]

Let me start off buy saying I watched the Socom series crash and burn due to a developer that hated it's own fanbase and ignored them from Socom 3 on. No matter how bad sales and community numbers became because of their overhauls, they stayed in denial that the changes were hurting the game and insisted they just needed to change it more to make it "more accessible" which would eventually lead to the closing of their company's doors. They ignored the clear majority and seemed to take their input from a tiny handful of Hammer Legion Members who would have been happy if they found a Mario Kart game in the box so long as the word Socom was stamped on it.

So with that said I understand that any changes requested by an outside community or a minority is a very sensitive issue. I would never ask for a Counterstrike game to change it's view perspective to third person just cause I was a Socom fan, or ask for changes to how the game modes play, etc. There is one thing though that I do feel could bring in more tactical players to the fold that wouldn't be an actual change to how the game plays. It would make the game a possible buy for me but I would want the counterstrike community's opinion first because I feel like a dev should please it's community first and foremost before trying to expand it's fanbase. Make a great game for the community and they will bring in new players through word of mouth which I still feel is better then any kind of advertising scheme out there.

Ok so let me quit the rambling and get to it. The one variation I think that would make the new counterstrike more attractive to fans of other tactical games is if they were to ditch the weapon purchasing system. I think with all the games today doing some sort of unlocks system this is an area where CS could draw in people who don't like unlocking stuff and who like to have their full arsenal at their disposal and everyone on an even playing field. I think experience, practice, and learning all the maps and the best way to play them is what should make a gamer more skilled then another, not just who has the better weapons available to them.

Now again, even though this is not an actual request to change the actual gameplay itself such as modes, view, or mechanics in the game fanbases can get very sensitive over any variation in the game they like and I do get that and understand cause I was there myself. So I'm just curious to know if this is a system that even people inside the fanbase wishes was different or if you like that system and want it to stay the same. I wouldn't want it changed if the majority of fans here like the system because as seen with Zipper, not listening to the majority of your fans can kill a franchise and I don't wish that on any fans of any game out there.

[venom :: zid]

This thread started out on a good foot until I got to the third paragraph, unbelievable the things people suggest....

[ds-]

That system would never work simply because in CS, weapons are balanced with their price. It's not like in other games where rifles are pretty much equal to each other and you just choose based on preference.

What will happen is that there will be 3 weapons being used. The AWP, the AUG, and the SG553.

[kinanischka]

Originally Posted by TOMBSTONE4U

The one variation I think that would make the new counterstrike more attractive to fans of other tactical games is if they were to ditch the weapon purchasing system. I think with all the games today doing some sort of unlocks system this is an area where CS could draw in people who don't like unlocking stuff and who like to have their full arsenal at their disposal and everyone on an even playing field. I think experience, practice, and learning all the maps and the best way to play them is what should make a gamer more skilled then another, not just who has the better weapons available to them.

IMO this is a very bad idea. The money system in CS adds a lot of depth to the gameplay.

Try to imagine competitive matches without gun rounds, eco, counter ecos, etc... You would have AK/AWP/M4 rounds, and the losing team would never be punished for getting such powerful weapons and using them to their maximum efficiency.

The core issue with your idea is that, contrarily to COD or BF where most weapons fundamentally have the same attack power, you can find LARGE discrepancies in CS, which are balanced out by the money system.

Without weapon buying, only a few guns would be used, and the competitive balance would go down the drain, smoothing out the differences in skill.


By the way, we appreciate your input, don't go thinking this is a bad post... But the concept is just so counter-productive for CS that you might get some harsh answers.

[Tutacio]

If you play PC then you have no worries. There will be hundreds of servers that give you max cash every round, thus gaining the ability to buy whatever the frig you want.

To change it in the core game would change a huge enjoyable aspect to the game that you seem to have yet to experience fully and figure out.

[TOMBSTONE4U]

Originally Posted by venom :: zid

This thread started out on a good foot until I got to the third paragraph, unbelievable the things people suggest....

Well that's why I asked first. I have no problems with you guys not wanting it changed if you don't like that idea. I'll just look to another game for my next "tactical" fix. It's been my experience though through playing Socom that you can have balance through arsenal sizes. Example: More powerful guns had smaller clips or more harsh recoil/bloom then weaker guns, or if you chose grenades you could have three explosives while if you picked RPG you only got one rocket to use.

I can see though that if such a small alteration is going be labeled an unbelievable request as if it's asking for an entire overhaul of the gameplay then maybe this game is best left to its niche market and I have no problem with that.Be glad you're not a Socomer though cause you don't know what unbelievable change truly is yet lol. Other games like Ghost Recon are on the way so no biggie it's not like CS is the only tac option out there. I just put it out there and figured I'd give the fanbase a respectful chance to weigh in instead of just flat out requesting the developer change it but I see that if it's not an exact counterstrike remake people are going to snap lol. Enjoy your game and I'll just forget about CS, sorry to anyone offended by the suggestion.

[Nubula]

Originally Posted by venom :: zid

This thread started out on a good foot until I got to the third paragraph, unbelievable the things people suggest....

lol, agreed. Stopped reading right about there.


Socom is very diff. from CS, so it worked alright without a weapon buying system. CS is designed around the buying system. It's probably the one thing no one has ever tried to change lol.

[Se7eNytes]

Originally Posted by Tutacio

If you play PC

I really hope there's some sort of server renting feature on consoles like Battlefield 3... (though what are the chances of that?)

[TOMBSTONE4U]

Originally Posted by kinanischka

IMO this is a very bad idea. The money system in CS adds a lot of depth to the gameplay.

Try to imagine competitive matches without gun rounds, eco, counter ecos, etc... You would have AK/AWP/M4 rounds, and the losing team would never be punished for getting such powerful weapons and using them to their maximum efficiency.

The core issue with your idea is that, contrarily to COD or BF where most weapons fundamentally have the same attack power, you can find LARGE discrepancies in CS, which are balanced out by the money system.

Without weapon buying, only a few guns would be used, and the competitive balance would go down the drain, smoothing out the differences in skill.


By the way, we appreciate your input, don't go thinking this is a bad post... But the concept is just so counter-productive for CS that you might get some harsh answers.

Yeah Socom had very powerful differences in guns but they balanced it through clip sizes and bloom/recoil levels. Example: A 100 round machine gun would be a lot more inaccurate and a weaker smaller clip weapon could still take him with better accuracy. I think there's ways to balance without a buy system but again if thats the way the players prefer it no problem. It's just a game I had some interest in but it won't be devastating for me if they keep it the way it is and I pass on it. On the other hand it seems it would be devastating to CS fans if it was changed so by all means I would want them to keep it that way if the fans feel that strongly about it. Thats the thing though I didn't know how you guys felt so no other way to find out then to inquire about it.

[Headshotz McGee]

Originally Posted by TOMBSTONE4U

There is one thing though that I do feel could bring in more tactical players to the fold that wouldn't be an actual change to how the game plays.

The thing is, removing the money system does change how the game plays. It's not as direct as changing the recoil or movement, but the money aspect is it's own meta-game. Deciding whether or not to have an eco round, to buy armor or a gun, etc. all add to the game.

[Tutacio]

I'm kind of perplexed that your buying decision is going to be decided on CS's money system. I too enjoy having weapons available to me as opposed to having to level up a character to obtain them like in CoD. The money system for the most part does not hamper gameplay. If anything it adds a whole different dimension to gameplay that you seriously have to sit down and experience before you pass judgment.

It could be the best decision you've ever made in gaming.

[Sergis]

i feel like you missed the part where everyone starts out with 800$ and what guns are available to them later is a direct consequence of their playing and money management. if anything, its more tactical than just picking what you like.

[kinanischka]

Originally Posted by TOMBSTONE4U

Yeah Socom had very powerful differences in guns but they balanced it through clip sizes and bloom/recoil levels. Example: A 100 round machine gun would be a lot more inaccurate and a weaker smaller clip weapon could still take him with better accuracy. I think there's ways to balance without a buy system but again if thats the way the players prefer it no problem. It's just a game I had some interest in but it won't be devastating for me if they keep it the way it is and I pass on it. On the other hand it seems it would be devastating to CS fans if it was changed so by all means I would want them to keep it that way if the fans feel that strongly about it. Thats the thing though I didn't know how you guys felt so no other way to find out then to inquire about it.

I don't know much about SOCOM, but don't you also have much larger maps?

I'm just curious, because if this is the case, then yes, the spread, recoil, clip size could be enough to balance it.

But in CS, most players need to be able to engage from any distance. An AK 47 is (or was, I don't know about GO yet) as effective at long distance as it is at mid-range.

[WethriN]

really bad idea for any cs game imo. I don't think it's even worth a debate. sorry..

[TOMBSTONE4U]

Originally Posted by Tutacio

I'm kind of perplexed that your buying decision is going to be decided on CS's money system. I too enjoy having weapons available to me as opposed to having to level up a character to obtain them like in CoD. The money system for the most part does not hamper gameplay. If anything it adds a whole different dimension to gameplay that you seriously have to sit down and experience before you pass judgment.

It could be the best decision you've ever made in gaming.

I'm not saying it's a terrible system. it's just a matter of preference. I liked balancing done through clip sizes and recoil. I don't feel all weapons available really makes everyone grab the most powerful gun though. For example any of you who ever did try say like Socom 2 know that the IW and the M14 were considered "overpowered" yet my weapons of choice were always the M4A1 or the HK 5 and felt their accuracy made up for what they lacked in damage. If a team was too heavy with one gun then I'd simply kill one and take his gun to use against his team lol.

Like I said though no biggie. Socom servers are still up so if need be I'll just stick to the system I prefer with those games. I just would have liked to find another option that could replace Socom (not by completely imitating it mind you) but am already accepting the fact that's probably not going to happen. Every game has an aspect or two that their community wishes was done differently so I just figured I'd see if this was one of those aspects but since it's not then by all means I would want them to keep it the way you guys like it. I wouldn't want a change that would convince me to buy if it's going to cause thousands not to.