A Thread Regarding Kits

[Krojous]

Hello! This is a thread which pertains to Search and Destroy kits and the problem the current kit system is facing (in my opinion). Shall we?

The Current Kit Pricing System​

Ever since I joined the server, it seemed to me the kits were all randomly priced. Since there is no reasoning labeled on kits as to why they are priced that way, a new player has a very good chance of also believing this. These prices could also give off the idea that some kits are inherently overpowered or at least better considering how big the gaps are. If there was a gap of ~150 maximum between kits then it would seem much more situational, but when there is a 200 and 500 credit priced kit - a 300 difference which could buy a whole other kit itself - its only logical to assume some kits are just greater than others. After questioning the pricing system in #athios-feedback on the Discord, I learned that kits are in fact priced based on how niche they are and difficulty to use. Thus, pricing niche and more difficult kits higher stops any new players from purchasing a kit that is too complex/situational compared to a kit like Ghost. While this is understandable, I do not believe such big price gaps is the best way to stop this from occurring.

1. If a kit is more niche or complex, shouldn't it be less than a kit that is more general and easy? Players who purchase these kits are taking a gamble that they know how to use it efficiently and well. These kits are easy to mess up when using them, so why do they cost more? The system is unfair to those who main more skill-necessary kits.
2. If a new player did regret their decision of buying a kit too complex, there is already a refund system put in place for this. Assuming the new player doesn't hold onto this kit they dislike for more than a day or two, they can get a majority of their credits back from that purchase and just grind a bit more for a different kit.
3. As stated prior, even though there is a method to the madness, there is no labeling! A normal player has no clue why kits are priced the way they are and can mislead them into believing some kits are simply superior to others.
4. Kits are ultimately shown their usefulness by the person who plays them. A person could be very bad at melee and skilled at shooting or vice-versa, you can be great at Ghost and terrible at a tankier kit, etc. While in theory some kits are more "useful" than others, it all depends on the player.
5. The scarcest kits in the game tend to be on the higher-priced end (I'll get to this more later!). Therefore, it is safe to assume this pricing system stops potential kit variety.

Due to all of this, the current way kits are priced seems to be completely inefficient, misleading, and unnecessary for what its intended purpose is. So, I went to the drawing board and thought of some ways the kit system can be changed.

Kits Overview/Statistics​

First, I wanted to create an in-depth list regarding kits. This is what I came up with, based on what I've seen for this past month and a quarter that I've been playing Athios as well as pigpig's, Onett's, Mythless', and Microwave's opinions. Sorry in advance if its too messy.

Frequently Used Kits (~206 credits/kit)​

[Offensive]​

Trooper - Free​

Rewind - Free​

Ghost - 200​

​

[Off./Def.]​

Shortbow - Free​

Burst - 350​

Explosive - 400​

​

[Defensive]​

Demolitions - 350​

​

[Def./Support]​

Sorcerer - 350​

​

Used Kits (~229 credits/kit)​

[Offensive]​

Marine - 200​

Ninja - 300​

Sabreur - 200​

Frost - 150​

​

[Off./Def.]​

Juggernaut - 500​

Arbalist - 150​

Wraith - 250​

[Defensive]​

Trigger - 400​

Longbow - Free​

​

[Support]​

Medic - Free​

Centurion - 300​

Warper - 300​

​

Underused Kits (~331 credits/kit)​

[Offensive]​

Venom - 400​

Spy - 350​

Skinner - 350​

Berserker - 400​

Trickster - 300​

​

[Off./Def.]​

Vampire - 400​

Porcupine - 300​

​

[Defensive]​

Dwarf - 500​

​

[Support]​

Paladin - 300​

Teleporter - Free​

Operator - 350 ​

As you can see, there are three categories for kits: Frequently Used, Used, and Underused. These are simply based on how frequently these kits are seen played on the server by players. This generally seems to be all correct, more or less. The sub-categories of them (which I did not get an opinion of), separates kits based on if they are Offensive, Offensive/Defensive, Defensive, Defensive/Support, and Support. If you do not agree on these sub-categories, that is completely fine as they are just meant to show kits have multiple ways of being played. As long as we agree that some kits cannot just fit in one of the three main sub-categories (Offensive/Defensive/Support), then we can proceed.

This list establishes a multitude of things. It shows us that the most frequently used kits have an average of the least credits to purchase them, used are slightly above, and underused has a massive over-100 gap. Free kits were taken into account when dividing for the average. It is also notable that a good chunk of the Underused category kits can only play at their best potential with games that are bigger than what Athios gets on a daily average, so if we removed them (Spy, Skinner, Berserker, Vampire, Dwarf, Teleporter) then we get a new average of ~320 credits. This is still about the same, so it doesn't really matter if some kits are not that useful in the smaller games, it still shows the higher a kit is the chance of being used is less.

Another thing to notice is that there is no pure support class in Frequently Used. This made me think of the idea of pricing kits based on the three main categories, where offensive kits cost the most, defensive in the middle, and support the least. However, this quickly was shattered as some kits can be counted in two (or even three but i didn't bother trying to account for that) categories and can lead to a disaster such as the Overwatch category system.

It could be said that the underused kits simply need a buff or their prices reduced, although I think that this would still make kit prices seem too random and I think we need to fix more than just kit variety as shown in my points inside the first section of this post. With all this foundation now laid out, I can finally present the best solution as far as I've thought about it.

The Solution​

The kit system should be changed to one where all the kits are evenly priced and have a difficulty system shown within their lore in the kit GUI. Kits would be priced at 250 each, which is essentially the average price of all kits (taking into account free ones) combined. This allows for fair credit usage for players who main any kit(s) and allows generally for more kits to be owned. The more kits someone owns, not only does variety increase but it gives them more incentive to keep playing to get new (and now cheaper) kits. Refunds given via /sellkit will be more useful now as a player regaining credits from a newly-bought kit would only need to grind just a bit more again to be able to pick any other kit of their choosing. All the prices being the same allows for clear communication to new players that all kits are viable and have their own use, and pairing them with a difficulty of stars or easy/medium/hard etc. can stop them or serve as a proper warning before they buy a kit too complex/niche. Since kits expire after a month either way, I don't see a reason as to why kits need to even be up to a price as high as 500 considering that's (assuming you win them all) at least 100 games. Something that could take a casual player a month to reach and even the more active at least a week, all to be able to obtain one kit for a month.

That's all to this post. I hope my solution or some change will happen to the current kit pricing system. Thanks for reading!

 

[MichaelMeowCat]

Very beautiful idea, I give my full support. The kits were already a little confusing to me (when I was a newer player) and before I had much search and destroy experience. Very well typed analysis. I hope the staff consider or something gggggggggg

 

[Microwave]

Pog :D, full support in kit price changes to encourage players to use underused kits. Having all ghost games isn't very fun after all (yes, a ghost main is saying this). Although some of the underused kits do need a buff, cost is steering a lot of people along with me away from underused kits like venom. Something like what you're proposing could be very helpful :D

 

[Onett]

I like the idea of standardizing kit prices, although I would prefer at least some variance.

So instead of every kit being 250, you could just restrict the kit price range to 150 credits up to 350 credits or something like that. Ik you mentioned a new kit organization system, which I think is a great idea, but I still feel like all kits being 250 could be intimidating to new players, it doesn't really give them any direction on what to buy.

That's one thing (and probably the only thing) that I liked about ghost being 50 credits. It was a good way to quickly introduce some of the more complex SnD mechanics for new players.

 

[Krojous]

I like the idea of standardizing kit prices, although I would prefer at least some variance.

So instead of every kit being 250, you could just restrict the kit price range to 150 credits up to 350 credits or something like that. Ik you mentioned a new kit organization system, which I think is a great idea, but I still feel like all kits being 250 could be intimidating to new players, it doesn't really give them any direction on what to buy.

That's one thing (and probably the only thing) that I liked about ghost being 50 credits. It was a good way to quickly introduce some of the more complex SnD mechanics for new players.

I didn't really go in-depth regarding the possible classification system of kits since I think that would best be decided by Athios staff, though I think it would be sufficient on giving direction. With that said, the credit variance might look more pleasing and in-depth. Even though that is only a gap of 200 credits, the scale is still very similar. I don't believe a price gap of a whole kit (and some more) should exist in a price revamp. 200 to 300 seems more sensible, with 225 and 275 prices existing as well.

 

[Mythless]

I agree the Kit prices could look less random, and I also do think there should be some sort of information that indicates a kit’s difficulty level. The newer peeps seem to be in total agreement with this, so I feel there is good evidence of this issue.

I don’t mean to hijack somewhat, but I made a thread a while ago about improving SnD’s aesthetics, and one of those categories in that thread tackled how the Kit GUI should look like to help newer players learn about the kits more. The idea was giving more info about such kit by labeling them as certain “Roles” and giving an abstract “Stat” spread. I believe that combined with the Difficulty label solution you proposed, as well as Onett’s more standardized (but still varied) pricing, it would solve most of the issue regarding the possible confusion, regrets, and frustrations a new player may experience out of the current Kit system.

 

[Microwave]

I agree the Kit prices could look less random, and I also do think there should be some sort of information that indicates a kit’s difficulty level. The newer peeps seem to be in total agreement with this, so I feel there is good evidence of this issue.

I don’t mean to hijack somewhat, but I made a thread a while ago about improving SnD’s aesthetics, and one of those categories in that thread tackled how the Kit GUI should look like to help newer players learn about the kits more. The idea was giving more info about such kit by labeling them as certain “Roles” and giving an abstract “Stat” spread. I believe that combined with the Difficulty label solution you proposed, as well as Onett’s more standardized (but still varied) pricing, it would solve most of the issue regarding the possible confusion, regrets, and frustrations a new player may experience out of the current Kit system.

I agree on most of your points, but the only one I disagree with is the stats spread one. A kit's "stats" vary heavily depending on how you're going to play a kit. Take ghost for instance, some people camp their own bomb with ghost picking ghosts who try and light, and there are ghosts who actively try to assassinate members of the opposing team. The "stats" of the two play styles would be completely different. Besides that I completely agree with things like explaining how the kit works, for example the trigger could use an explanation that is more beneficial to new players :D

 

[Mythless]

I agree on most of your points, but the only one I disagree with is the stats spread one. A kit's "stats" vary heavily depending on how you're going to play a kit. Take ghost for instance, some people camp their own bomb with ghost picking ghosts who try and light, and there are ghosts who actively try to assassinate members of the opposing team. The "stats" of the two play styles would be completely different. Besides that I completely agree with things like explaining how the kit works, for example the trigger could use an explanation that is more beneficial to new players :D

When I explained about Kit Stats, the thing I wanted to convey was a kit’s potential capabilities—not so much an absolute integer of power if that makes sense.

Taking Ghost for example: Yes you can play Ghosts in completely different ways like you explained, but we can all agree that Ghost has the ability to move around easily, or the fact that having no armor entails a greater challenge of surviving due to how squishy the kit is. Another less flexible example would be Explosive: You could play the kit without using RPGs, or Grenades, or both! Does it sound strange considering that’s what the kit uses for most of its damage? Yes, but it’s not stopping the player from using it that way. But despite how it’s played, we all know Explosive is capable of dealing a lot of damage.

Player skill and choice was not taken into account because it would seriously confuse the whole point of the concept—to help associate kits to what they’re capable of doing. What they will do is completely on the player’s actions. The stats are there to remind or hint at the player that this is what a kit could potentially achieve in these categories.

(Also if there is still discussion on this it should be on the original thread from hereon—don’t want to stray away from this thread’s topic)

 

[Microwave]

When I explained about Kit Stats, the thing I wanted to convey was a kit’s potential capabilities—not so much an absolute integer of power if that makes sense.

Taking Ghost for example: Yes you can play Ghosts in completely different ways like you explained, but we can all agree that Ghost has the ability to move around easily, or the fact that having no armor entails a greater challenge of surviving due to how squishy the kit is. Another less flexible example would be Explosive: You could play the kit without using RPGs, or Grenades, or both! Does it sound strange considering that’s what the kit uses for most of its damage? Yes, but it’s not stopping the player from using it that way. But despite how it’s played, we all know Explosive is capable of dealing a lot of damage.

Player skill and choice was not taken into account because it would seriously confuse the whole point of the concept—to help associate kits to what they’re capable of doing. What they will do is completely on the player’s actions. The stats are there to remind or hint at the player that this is what a kit could potentially achieve in these categories.

(Also if there is still discussion on this it should be on the original thread from hereon—don’t want to stray away from this thread’s topic)

Not always, since the way you play kits can affect things like your survivability a lot. For example, an aggressive ghost has a lot less survivability than a passive one because of it's invis. There are definitely some things that you could put stats for though. For example how well it can hold a line, or how well it can adapt to different situations. Where ghost is no doubt terrible at holding a line no matter how you play it, and is good at adapting.