I was curious about your thoughts on these types of classes in MMO/FPS/etc type multiplayer games. Be it World of Warcraft, Team Fortress 2(to list the two most popular) or others. The stealth/invisibility/etc type of class that sneaks up and assassinates other players either in one hit, a couple of quick hits in concert with some type of incapacitate, etc.
Personally, I am not ashamed to admit I have a very conservative playstyle in multiplayer scenarios. I hate dying, not for any ego related reasons, but rather I simply despise having be out of the action. Die, wait to respawn, run back... it's a pretty large chunk of dead time when you really think about a 2-3 hour gaming session. So rather than rush headlong into the fray and repeatedly die, I prefer to stay away from the main lines of battle and not push my luck. I tend to have a good kill/death ratio, but still hardly effective in comparison to the more aggressive players.
And along comes "Mr. Sneaky". His means differ from game to game, but one factor remains ever so constant: they bypass the main lines of battle and gun for the conservative people in the back. They throw something of a monkey wrench into the whole risk/reward paradigm. Risky players get lots of kills and die a lot. Conservative players get much fewer kills... but STILL die a lot.
I could, of course, address this to the particular development teams in question, but since this is a phenomenon present in many different games I thought I'd get the opinion of you folks here on UM... Do assassin type classes unfairly/unnecessarily skew the risk/reward system?
(I can't help but compare this scenario to the current GM bondholder's debacle in regard to the conservative investment getting paid off last when they contractually are first in line due to a lower investment return)
Personally, I am not ashamed to admit I have a very conservative playstyle in multiplayer scenarios. I hate dying, not for any ego related reasons, but rather I simply despise having be out of the action. Die, wait to respawn, run back... it's a pretty large chunk of dead time when you really think about a 2-3 hour gaming session. So rather than rush headlong into the fray and repeatedly die, I prefer to stay away from the main lines of battle and not push my luck. I tend to have a good kill/death ratio, but still hardly effective in comparison to the more aggressive players.
And along comes "Mr. Sneaky". His means differ from game to game, but one factor remains ever so constant: they bypass the main lines of battle and gun for the conservative people in the back. They throw something of a monkey wrench into the whole risk/reward paradigm. Risky players get lots of kills and die a lot. Conservative players get much fewer kills... but STILL die a lot.
I could, of course, address this to the particular development teams in question, but since this is a phenomenon present in many different games I thought I'd get the opinion of you folks here on UM... Do assassin type classes unfairly/unnecessarily skew the risk/reward system?
(I can't help but compare this scenario to the current GM bondholder's debacle in regard to the conservative investment getting paid off last when they contractually are first in line due to a lower investment return)
