CIA vs Rangers starting loadout

[CrazyVampire]

This isn't really criticism but I've noticed that the Rangers seem have a much more advantageous/conceptually-complete starting loadout than CIA.

What I mean is that Rangers have a good multi-purpose long-gun, reasonable armour, other decent stuff and can fulfill all of their main roles right off the bat. On the other hand, the CIA squads, who are all about stealth, begin the game with no access to silenced/suppressed weapons. That hampers - what I presume is to be - one of their primary tactics, eliminating some bad guys in isolation and then going stealthy again.

I only noticed last night that I could switch back and forth between Rangers and CIA on almost any map. I thought they were predetermined, like "this is either a CIA or a Rangers map". It means I've spent a lot of upgrade points on my Rangers but very little on CIA. Thankfully I think I can still put enough together to buy silenced pistols for my undercovers.

[Freelancer MAD DOg]

CiA should have some ‘007’ stuff

[axios2006]

Originally posted by Freelancer MAD DOg:

CiA should have some ‘007’ stuff

Real CIA is not a 007 movie...

Also, in DK2 CIA are operatives. Not infiltration agents...

[Occupy Mars]

The evolution of this product is interesting.
It was once a "tactical puzzle" but has become a "toy soldier play-set".

Originally, a limited amount of resources had to be applied skillfully to achieve challenging objectives within a time limit. This was very close to what an actual commander deals with.
Learning what it is like to lead a combat team was the main benefit to the player.

It is becoming an endless collection of accessories (both people and equipment) that a player can mix and match then watch as they move about the playing board.
This is now a toy-box. Grab what you want and have fun. Visually impressive.
Yet very little is learned. Much like any other RTS game. Keep clicking, you'll get there.

Certainly, the Devs can create whatever they wish.
But the original direction was a learning device.
The current arc is towards a grab-bag of tech toys which players can throw at the map.

Put another way...
At this moment there is an FBI and CIA operator 5 minutes drive from my location.
The original game had you thinking as they do. Few options, and failure is not one of them. The current version is more akin to cosplay / LARP. Dress 'em up and watch 'em go!

HINT: When you see a post that says "Why can't I...?" it is a request to move farther from the former, closer to the latter.

"If you make people think they are thinking, they will love you.
But if you really make them think, they will hate you." -- Attributed to a Few

[axios2006]

Originally posted by קיינמאל מער:

....
Certainly, the Devs can create whatever they wish.
But the original direction was a learning device.
...

May I ask you the source of this? Direct contact from Devs?

[CrazyVampire]

Originally posted by קיינמאל מער:

It was once a "tactical puzzle" but has become a "toy soldier play-set".

Hmm, I'm not sure I would go quite that far BUT I think you do make a good point, even if it's really just an interesting discussion and not "Oh no! the devs must change the game!". I would certainly like to see some more difficulty in the game and limitations on how much gear I can take in. I'm finding that I'm doing maps and often have loads of handhelds left over. I'm even quite liberal about how I spread them around the map (depending on my mood, sometimes I'll flashbang every room).

But - the game is a lot of things to a lot of people! For example, I play almost exclusively in single-plan mode. That actually means that I'll play each map iteratively, over many attempts. Generally speaking I'll do that by planning a series of moves which gets my operators into a strong/dominant position and freeze them all on that with Go Code A. I'll play that segment of the action out on the map a few times to see how it goes, adjusting the plan as I learn things like "oops, I didn't clear that area properly" or "there's extra-heavy resistance from that sector, I need more barrels facing that way". Each time I have consolidated Position A, I'll just abort the map immediately after that point and iterate once more.

Once I've got "up to Position A" planned and I'm happy with it, I'll start working on how to develop that position and push forward a little, to a "Position B", and again I'll play through that a few times, in a similar way. I will continue that way until the map is cleared.

I appreciate that's probably a fairly unusual way to play the game. It's made possible by the consequence-free restarts. It's also made moderately interesting by the RNG and enemy AI. The same enemies in the same situations are not certain to take the same actions in each round. If there was no RNG in the game then the way I play it would be real boring and I'd easily be able to cheese it by learning precise positions and responses (like how a time-traveller would be unstoppable in a firefight).

I'm really discussing my own unusual play-style not to say it's better or worse, but to illustrate my point that imagine many others play the game in an equally unusual way. As long as they're having fun then this is a good game IMO.

[maru]

Originally posted by קיינמאל מער:

...

Wrong, this always was, and still is, a game. Given that, attributing things to it that it is not, like that it is a tool of some kind, only to then complain that it does not remain true to that is a little unfair.

Besides which, if it were a tool, who would really be using something like this, rather than any other simpler solution like a whiteboard for a debrief after a training scenario? What would be the actual role or purpose of something like this over something like arma?

And maybe the thing that bothers me the most about the "but it's a tool....now it's turning into a toy" logic is what about all the other abstractions and bugs already in the game that make it feel like a game? Our operators don't bleed, and never break bones. They can't climb over couches, shoot while crouched, go prone to properly crawl under a window without being seen etc. and you're hung up on "gadgets?" Basic functionality, and discussion on it is relevant, and your wild assertions that this is some sort of important educational thing is misguided, at best.

[Lizard]

I like more options as well but he does have a point, the game felt pretty different in the beginning of the development.

It would be nice to have a "limited resources" mode or something that you could activate for an additional challenge, maybe with a little button next to the maps like the other challenges that already exist.

[Vulpe Nebuna]

What kind of limited resources do you have in mind?

[3/4 MILE, CALL THE BALL]

Some don't want the challenge of a puzzle. They prefer the game version of throwing money at a problem. More guns, more people, more functions, etc.
It's a toy to them. Living out a fantasy.

Others enjoy the puzzle challenge. They like to solve the situation with creativity.
Use what you have, and it won't be much. It's a Critical Thinking Tool to them.

As the game becomes less puzzle and more action-shooter, players can have all the extras that make "toy people" happy and the "critical thinkers" can just omit certain elements from their team set-up to obtain a more demanding situation.

The best form of play teaches.
That doesn't mean everyone playing is eager (or able) to learn.

[Vulpe Nebuna]

When you say “all the extras that male toy people happy” what do you refer too? Most of the stuff CIA or not , was in the game early.

[3/4 MILE, CALL THE BALL]

Originally posted by Vulpe Nebuna:

When you say “all the extras that male toy people happy” what do you refer too? Most of the stuff CIA or not , was in the game early.

Good question. Thank you. Please allow me to clarify.

It is less what the Devs have implemented than what players are demanding.

"Add this..." is a common post. Most often it is to overcome an inability to succeed with the game in it's current form. That's a player problem, not a game design problem.

If you approach the game as "shoot everything" then the pressure is on YOU (the Dev) for action-shooter elements. More gear, more capabilities, more team functions, etc.

If you approach the game as "solve this" then the pressure is on the player to THINK.

Posts such as "Is this a bug?" or "Why can't I...?" are more often just someone unable to achieve success as presented. YET, they don't SEE the problem being on THEIR end.
That's a learning opportunity. But it's presented as a Dev failure ("fix the game!").

NOTE: The less civil the tone of a post the more likely the problem is player related.

Some of it is life experience.
There are posts with the logic "This exists, I should have it in the game" (toy).
That is different from people who served in combat where the logic is often "This is what we have and there is not time to acquire anything else" (puzzle).

THAT brings us back to the "realism" challenge (itself a puzzle).
I often did not have what I wanted but I went anyway (others were depending on me to be there). Again, a different mindset from "If I can't have it the game is flawed!".

What initially attracted me to this game was the learning aspect (which is VERY rare).
Most games are escapes. That's fine. But a game that makes you think is valuable on a level more than mere price. The world could use more Leaders. They must be built.

It's YOUR creation and an impressive one at that. What direction it goes is up to you.

VERY SORRY that is so long.
I'll drop out and let this matter seek it's own level. Cheers!

[Bear Grylls]

You must follow restrictions already to three star most missions. The devs could easily add some extra awards to give you that fuzzy feeling, or you could just restrict yourself.

On the other hand, ignoring capabilities or equipment restricts the total scope of the game.

[Futt Buckerson]

Originally posted by Don't Overthink It:

Originally posted by Vulpe Nebuna:

When you say “all the extras that male toy people happy” what do you refer too? Most of the stuff CIA or not , was in the game early.

Good question. Thank you. Please allow me to clarify.

It is less what the Devs have implemented than what players are demanding.

"Add this..." is a common post. Most often it is to overcome an inability to succeed with the game in it's current form. That's a player problem, not a game design problem.

If you approach the game as "shoot everything" then the pressure is on YOU (the Dev) for action-shooter elements. More gear, more capabilities, more team functions, etc.

If you approach the game as "solve this" then the pressure is on the player to THINK.

Posts such as "Is this a bug?" or "Why can't I...?" are more often just someone unable to achieve success as presented. YET, they don't SEE the problem being on THEIR end.
That's a learning opportunity. But it's presented as a Dev failure ("fix the game!").

NOTE: The less civil the tone of a post the more likely the problem is player related.

Some of it is life experience.
There are posts with the logic "This exists, I should have it in the game" (toy).
That is different from people who served in combat where the logic is often "This is what we have and there is not time to acquire anything else" (puzzle).

THAT brings us back to the "realism" challenge (itself a puzzle).
I often did not have what I wanted but I went anyway (others were depending on me to be there). Again, a different mindset from "If I can't have it the game is flawed!".

What initially attracted me to this game was the learning aspect (which is VERY rare).
Most games are escapes. That's fine. But a game that makes you think is valuable on a level more than mere price. The world could use more Leaders. They must be built.

It's YOUR creation and an impressive one at that. What direction it goes is up to you.

VERY SORRY that is so long.
I'll drop out and let this matter seek it's own level. Cheers!

this guy overthunk it lol