Look what was in the NY Times today - Page 4

Freeboter · 01-23-2008, 03:56 PM

as much as I hate the "microtransactions" I'm downloading this the first day it comes out... unless you have to pay extra to get it early.

Campzilla · 01-23-2008, 07:56 PM

Not wanting to give EA any money grabbing ideas, but I wonder why they don't already charge a subscription for the battlefield games?

If we got updates that weren't just basically tweaks and the odd map here and there, I think it would be worth it. Some part of the game would take a fair bit work to fix and its never going to happen now because sales have slowed down and EA gets basically no money for fixing anything, updates like:

= better server browser, faster login and setup
= fixing titan mode for slower machines
= fixing the titan 1&2 corridor meat grinder
= vehicle radio channel
= etc etc

**Tarenth** · 01-23-2008, 08:16 PM

Probably because if they did require a subscription fee it would be somewhat difficult to justify it. BF is a round by round game where you have a start, middle, and end. Your experience can also be dramatically changed by the sever you play (TG v Everywhere else) and the people you play with (are you in a PUB squad, a TGIHS/clan squad, or lonewolfing?). The single player experience is somewhat...meh...and once they release new maps then there really is no reason to go back and experience the old ones. They'll also be forced to release new content every month because its very easy for people to get their fill of maps due to the size and gameplay elements involved.

Now...if BF actually developed into a MMOFPS with continuous addition of maps and areas through expanding 'campagin fronts' then you could justify a monthly fee. Joining a static team with objectives that persist until the other side takes it back again would definately be interesting.

I think it was called "Planet Side" though.

BeSiege82 · 01-23-2008, 08:47 PM

booooo..... no thanks EA.

**DaBrit** · 01-23-2008, 08:49 PM

If anybody played ShatteredGalaxy, I could see a similar battle system working well. There were definite starts and ends to the battles, but they were a part of a larger war. Of course, SG had its fair share of problems...

**LuckyStrike** · 01-24-2008, 11:25 PM

can I buy a hairy chest for my metrosexual soldier?

Birdman1011395 · 01-25-2008, 12:13 AM

Since someone mentioned Gunbound, I hope they work out the system to be similar. I.e. you start with a little dude in a white-sleeveless T-shirts (probably basic "metro" fatigues), and you can buy clothes, helmuts, flags, etc. But more importantly, each transaction can cost "real money", in-game money, or a combination of the two.

**skullhedman** · 01-25-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Now...if BF actually developed into a MMOFPS with continuous addition of maps and areas through expanding 'campagin fronts' then you could justify a monthly fee. Joining a static team with objectives that persist until the other side takes it back again would definately be interesting.

I swear to god,I was thinking about a Battlefield MMOFPS last night. With a new game mode called "Campaign" where multiple server clusters run each map as a different theater constantly. Then if one side wins, the they win that battle in the campaign and move to a location closer to the other side's "home base". If the defending side wins that, it moves back to the first map and so on. So commanders can organize across multiple maps, troop size deployment (say, only deploying a single armor regiment to Verdun, as opposed to an infantry regiment and an armor regiment to Berlin.)

You sign up for an army, you designate the commander, he draws up a battle plan for multiple maps, and you go back and forth, like a real War. Each time a map is won or lost changes the make up of the map. Such as, if the PAC wins Suez Canal, when the EU pushed back to that map, they would start only with the Inner Bridge Lock control point, and would have to push out from there. If the ticket count at the end is close (say, within 50 tickets,) they would start with every control point up to the the Dry Lake, which PAC would control, along with the Oil Field and their original home base.

Each map would be an Assault Lines type game type.

But in addition, and most importantly, you'd have the option of playing on these persistent server clusters, or on a regular Conquest server.

Which, actually, is something we could do on our own through careful planning.

**skullhedman** · 01-25-2008, 02:31 PM

Just thinking aloud here, if you're not interested, just skip it.

I'm just musing on the concept of a TG MMOFPS, riffing off of what I was talking about in the last post. This forum won't allow me to use the Hide tags, so you're going to see a long post. Sorry!

Campaign (set up by TG) would work as such:

Command Structure:

Supreme Commander - responsible for troop deployment (Picking a map, picking map size. Picking a game type.) Responsible for choosing Battlefield Commander & Companies assigned to different conflicts.
Battlefield Commander - Can be Supreme Commander. Responsible for the in-game commander role. Commands a Company of two - to three Squads.
Squad Leader - Picks a squad specialty (Infantry, Armor, Airborne). Exact same position as a regular SL. Hand picks squad of 2 - 6, depending on focus at the SL's discretion.

Squad Specialty:
Each SL is responsible for choosing the squad specialty, and the size of the squad from 2 - 6 players. Taking into account the necessity of that squad in each map. A squad can choose to be a Gunship Only squad, but this will only allow them to participate in a map that has a Gunship.

Infatry - Standard make-up. Can include Spec Ops squads, Anti-Armor squads, Defensive or Assault Squads.
Armor - Armor Support, Mobile Squads, and Gunship Squads.
Airborne - Titan Squads, Air Transport Squads. Adept at Titan attack/defense. Capable of manning all Titan guns. Adept at Titan troop deployment.

Campaign Rules:

Each Supreme Commander is responsible for choosing Troop deployment. If one SC deploys a Titan to an engagement, the conflict is automatically a Titan match.
A SC will choose who the BC will be for each engagement, and thus chooses the predominant Company for that Engagement. SC can choose to bolster their forces with Squads from other Companies if that company isn't already deployed in a different engagement.
Each Company must decide whether or not it is capable of playing in the Northern Strike theater.
If a company does not include a Titan squad, it cannot play in Titan matches.
If an Army does not have at least one Titan squad, it will automatically forfeit any Titan deployments.
Map layout is in three tiers. The first, and largest tier is the Front, the second Tier is the Occupied Territory, the third tier is The Siege. The Siege is the Army HQ. If the defending Army wins this map, the campaign is pushed back to their own OT.
Each Army has a "Headquarters", a map chosen by their commander. Once the army loses on that Map, the campaign is over. The HQ can only be attacked by the opposing Army once all OT (second tier) maps have been conquered.
There are 14 maps in Total. 5 European, 5 African, and 3 Northern Strike Maps, and Highway Tampa. Each tier is as follows : 2 HQ Maps, 4 OT Maps (2 per side), 7 Front Maps. Once an Army has majority control of the 8 Front Maps (5 Engagements), all conflicts push to the enemy OT maps. The invading army MUST capture both OT maps in order to move to the HQ map. If the OT maps are split, they will be replayed. If the defending Army wins both maps, fighting returns to the Front.
The supreme commanders will pick their maps in a "draft". The SC will pick one HQ, and two OT maps. All remaining maps will be played as The Front.
A draft will be held for BC's and companies. A player must join a squad, and that SL must commit to a BC/Company. BC's can choose specialty companies (such as an Airborne company, Armor, or Infantry company,) or choose to take multiple Squads from each category.

**Exploding_Silver** · 01-25-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyStrike

can I buy a hairy chest for my metrosexual soldier?

funny +rep

Bagheera · 01-25-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyStrike

can I buy a hairy chest for my metrosexual soldier?

If your soldier was truly metro, you'd buy the hairy chest, then pay a beautician in-game to wax it off.

Cpt.Pierce · 01-26-2008, 12:25 AM

skullhedman, you've got something there. I would play that game

**skullhedman** · 01-26-2008, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cpt.Pierce

skullhedman, you've got something there. I would play that game

Unfortunately, it would take probably a 100 players or more to get it going. :P

Just 4 man squads alone, with three per company, three companies per army would be 40-ish players per army.

Ideally matches could be set up whenever. With times agreed on by the SC's. Which could be a tactical advantage. You know you have a large European contingent, and the opposing Army doesn't have nearly as much talent at 3PM EST - so you schedule a match then for your EU guys, and you can win a match that way. It allows for more leeway in "deployment" for the SC, by picking and choosing times to suit his army over the other's. It also helps if an SC knows that Minsk is on the table, and they're PAC side. They can either choose to slug it through the "chokepoint of doom" or play their Titan card by deploying Titans, and ensuring that they have a level chance at winning the map (which is much more balanced on Titan than it is on Conquest.)

My favorite thing is the variety. If you pick an Armor squad, you could play a Tampa - Assault Lines one night, Camp G - Conquest the next, and finish up with Port Bavaria - Titan the last night. It really breaks up the regularity we have on the servers by forcing SC's to pick maps and game types. But it also gives players, squads, and companies choices in what game types the can play - by choosing to be non-NS, and picking and Defensive-styled Infantry unit, you can make a good bet you're going to see a lot of Camp G, Tunis Harbor, etc. I like all the maps. But I get tired of playing the same infantry maps over and over. I also finally cracked open NS, and I don't get to play those maps anywhere but on Pubbies - which sucks. (As an aside, I think Port Bavaria is the most interesting map I've seen in the game so far.)

So, all of our players get a chance to play game styles to their liking. Our Gunship fiends get chances to run regularly on maps that are Gunship oriented, and they get a lot of ROFLCOPTER action. Our Infantry lovers get to slug it out with small arms fire. The Armor fiends get to let loose on maps like Shuhia Tabia and Sidi. Finally, the guys who love to run Titan hallways get their chance to play them. And they don't have to wait for special scrimmages or PUGs to do it.

Most of all, it gives guys who aren't in IHS' a chance to run with a regular crew with a much more relaxed atmosphere and it gives our scrimmages some weight. It's not just bragging rights and fun. But also there's a sense of pride about defending something bigger than a control point.

**INSUNABULA** · 01-26-2008, 06:55 PM

As a games developer for an up-coming MMOG I have inside experience with the issues you're concerned with. I can categorically say that:

BFH will not allow you to purchase upgrades with respect to performance

It is morally ambiguous and in some countries illegal. The "microtransactions" are in regards to aesthetics that will not impact gameplay (unless you purchase a glowing-neon pink helmet that can be seen from miles around - in which case be prepared to be head-shot a lot)

**Tarenth** · 01-26-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skullhedman

I swear to god,I was thinking about a Battlefield MMOFPS last night. With a new game mode called "Campaign" where multiple server clusters run each map as a different theater constantly. Then if one side wins, the they win that battle in the campaign and move to a location closer to the other side's "home base". If the defending side wins that, it moves back to the first map and so on. So commanders can organize across multiple maps, troop size deployment (say, only deploying a single armor regiment to Verdun, as opposed to an infantry regiment and an armor regiment to Berlin.)

You sign up for an army, you designate the commander, he draws up a battle plan for multiple maps, and you go back and forth, like a real War. Each time a map is won or lost changes the make up of the map. Such as, if the PAC wins Suez Canal, when the EU pushed back to that map, they would start only with the Inner Bridge Lock control point, and would have to push out from there. If the ticket count at the end is close (say, within 50 tickets,) they would start with every control point up to the the Dry Lake, which PAC would control, along with the Oil Field and their original home base.

Each map would be an Assault Lines type game type.

But in addition, and most importantly, you'd have the option of playing on these persistent server clusters, or on a regular Conquest server.

Which, actually, is something we could do on our own through careful planning.

Mechassault 2 actually did something like that with its Conquest mode. Digging a little I pulled this from teamxbox.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeamXbox

Conquest: The New Frontier

While most of us know how addictively fun playing multiplayer matches over Xbox Live is, there has never really been a means to an end. You login, you play a few different games, you check your stats, you go to bed. Lord knows that I played enough Team Destruction matches in the original MechAssault, but the gameplay was sort of helter-skelter with no real feeling of accomplishment; other than whipping some ass of course. Well, in the sequel Day 1 Studios has turned things up a notch…or two. In Conquest mode, you still take part in all of the killer multiplayer game types, but this time each battle is just a small blip in the overall intergalactic war that is transpiring online. Think of Conquest mode as a never-ending war that will determine control of the inner sphere of the galaxy. But who is waging this war? This is where MechAssualt 2’s House system comes into play.

The Conquest Status screen is a real-time ticker of online galaxy conditions.

Keeping with the BattleTech universe theme, Conquest mode allows you to join one of five warring Houses: Kurita, Liao, Davion, Steiner, and Marik. When first accessing Conquest mode you are actually prompted to join a House, although you can change at any time (at the expense of your Conquest stats being reset). A House is not the same thing as a clan. Being there are only 5 Houses in Mech 2, they can be comprised of nearly an infinite amount of gamers which can include individual players or even clans. Should it become apparent that gamers are abusing the “open” format of joining Houses, there could be an eventual cap to prevent one House from becoming too large, but at launch there will be no type of cap. The Conquest Status screen is a constantly updated real-time “ticker” of sorts that displays the current condition of the galaxy; including which planets are about to fall, and any other recent changes of power. The logo of your chosen House is proudly displayed on the status screen and you are also provided the percentage of how much control your House has over the galaxy.

A number of menu options are immediately available from the Conquest Status screen, including war updates, access to the galaxy map, your current Conquest statistics, and the ability to go to war. Being that battles for planetary control are ongoing, you’ll need to check the War Updates to get all the latest info regarding recent changes. You’ll find a date and time stamp along with relevant info, such as, “House Kurita wins a decisive battle over House Davion to capture Planet Shamash.”

The Galaxy Map is a fully 3D map that shows the current state of the galaxy including planets currently under attack or those that are open for attack. The map can be manipulated by zooming in and out with the triggers and using the left stick or D-pad to move the cursor to highlight a particular planet to find out additional information. There will be well over 40 planets up for grabs, each with a specific game type and set number of points that are required before a House can win control.

War Stats are pretty self-explanatory in that it displays a gamer’s current score, kills, deaths, and currently aligned House. You can cycle through the top gamers, search individual houses, or check out how your friends are doing. All of these stats will also be immediately updated and available on www.mechassault2.com as well.

Finally, the “War” option allows you to launch attacks on open planets, reinforce attacks underway by your House, or to help defend a location in which your forces are under attack. This mode is all about territory. The more you territory you control, the more powerful your House is.

The key thing to understand is that Conquest mode is a persistent game mode; a living galaxy in which you can jump in and out of battles are your leisure. But there obviously a few ground rules that need to be laid down before all these battles take place.

Conquest: The Rules

As intense as the Conquest mode can be, there are still a few rules that apply to ensure a semblance of order. Here are a few of the general rules pertaining to Conquest:
Your House can only attack a planet if you won two planets that are linked to the target planet with trade routes (marked by the lines on the Galaxy Map).

To destroy a planet’s defenses and take it over, a House must win several games on the planet.
Each victory gains the winning House a point on the planet.
Each planet has a minimum number of Planet Points that a House must gain before the planet is conquered.
If the defending House reaches the point total first, all point values are reset and the attackers must try again.
If an attacking House reaches the point total first, the planet changes hands and all point totals are reset.

Being that points are specific to each planet, control can change hands several times. Again, each planet also has a specific game type (Base War, Snatch It!, CTF, etc.) which means that the members of a House will need to be well rounded Mech Warriors. Also, game types require a set number of players, so don’t expect to jump into a Base War match when everyone is asleep and score an easy victory.

Suffice to say I believe it failed.

01-23-2008, 03:56 PM	#46 (permalink)
Freeboter Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 65	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today as much as I hate the "microtransactions" I'm downloading this the first day it comes out... unless you have to pay extra to get it early.

01-23-2008, 07:56 PM	#47 (permalink)
Campzilla Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today Not wanting to give EA any money grabbing ideas, but I wonder why they don't already charge a subscription for the battlefield games? If we got updates that weren't just basically tweaks and the odd map here and there, I think it would be worth it. Some part of the game would take a fair bit work to fix and its never going to happen now because sales have slowed down and EA gets basically no money for fixing anything, updates like: = better server browser, faster login and setup = fixing titan mode for slower machines = fixing the titan 1&2 corridor meat grinder = vehicle radio channel = etc etc

01-23-2008, 08:16 PM	#48 (permalink)
Tarenth Join Date: May 2006 Location: California Posts: 2,124	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today Probably because if they did require a subscription fee it would be somewhat difficult to justify it. BF is a round by round game where you have a start, middle, and end. Your experience can also be dramatically changed by the sever you play (TG v Everywhere else) and the people you play with (are you in a PUB squad, a TGIHS/clan squad, or lonewolfing?). The single player experience is somewhat...meh...and once they release new maps then there really is no reason to go back and experience the old ones. They'll also be forced to release new content every month because its very easy for people to get their fill of maps due to the size and gameplay elements involved. Now...if BF actually developed into a MMOFPS with continuous addition of maps and areas through expanding 'campagin fronts' then you could justify a monthly fee. Joining a static team with objectives that persist until the other side takes it back again would definately be interesting. I think it was called "Planet Side" though. __________________ My sanity is not in question... It was a confirmed casualty some time ago. \|TG\|Tarenth Battlefield 2142 Mirra World of Warcraft Light, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people I had to kill because they ticked me off.

01-23-2008, 08:47 PM	#49 (permalink)
BeSiege82 Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: PA Posts: 1,283	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today booooo..... no thanks EA. __________________ lTG-Irrl BeSiege82 A platoon leader in his own right... "Courage grows strong at the wound." "Virescit Vulnere Virtus." "{My grump-o-meter starts to make a high-pitched whine when I point it at your post, though.}" -- Axis Platoon Leader of Irregular's platoon Alpha

01-23-2008, 08:49 PM	#50 (permalink)
DaBrit Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Albany, NY Posts: 812	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today If anybody played ShatteredGalaxy, I could see a similar battle system working well. There were definite starts and ends to the battles, but they were a part of a larger war. Of course, SG had its fair share of problems... __________________ TG-9th - By Any Means

01-24-2008, 11:25 PM	#51 (permalink)
LuckyStrike Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Richland, WA Age: 40 Posts: 880	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today can I buy a hairy chest for my metrosexual soldier? __________________ ............................... Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

01-25-2008, 12:13 AM	#52 (permalink)
Birdman1011395 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Richmond Age: 20 Posts: 168	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today Since someone mentioned Gunbound, I hope they work out the system to be similar. I.e. you start with a little dude in a white-sleeveless T-shirts (probably basic "metro" fatigues), and you can buy clothes, helmuts, flags, etc. But more importantly, each transaction can cost "real money", in-game money, or a combination of the two. __________________ BF 2142:\|TG-Irr\| Birdman10113 CoD4: \|TG-Irr\|Birdman Let's put the badges here...

01-25-2008, 02:31 PM	#54 (permalink)
skullhedman Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Tampa Age: 24 Posts: 276	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today Just thinking aloud here, if you're not interested, just skip it. I'm just musing on the concept of a TG MMOFPS, riffing off of what I was talking about in the last post. This forum won't allow me to use the Hide tags, so you're going to see a long post. Sorry! Campaign (set up by TG) would work as such: Command Structure: Supreme Commander - responsible for troop deployment (Picking a map, picking map size. Picking a game type.) Responsible for choosing Battlefield Commander & Companies assigned to different conflicts. Battlefield Commander - Can be Supreme Commander. Responsible for the in-game commander role. Commands a Company of two - to three Squads. Squad Leader - Picks a squad specialty (Infantry, Armor, Airborne). Exact same position as a regular SL. Hand picks squad of 2 - 6, depending on focus at the SL's discretion. Squad Specialty: Each SL is responsible for choosing the squad specialty, and the size of the squad from 2 - 6 players. Taking into account the necessity of that squad in each map. A squad can choose to be a Gunship Only squad, but this will only allow them to participate in a map that has a Gunship. Infatry - Standard make-up. Can include Spec Ops squads, Anti-Armor squads, Defensive or Assault Squads. Armor - Armor Support, Mobile Squads, and Gunship Squads. Airborne - Titan Squads, Air Transport Squads. Adept at Titan attack/defense. Capable of manning all Titan guns. Adept at Titan troop deployment. Campaign Rules: Each Supreme Commander is responsible for choosing Troop deployment. If one SC deploys a Titan to an engagement, the conflict is automatically a Titan match. A SC will choose who the BC will be for each engagement, and thus chooses the predominant Company for that Engagement. SC can choose to bolster their forces with Squads from other Companies if that company isn't already deployed in a different engagement. Each Company must decide whether or not it is capable of playing in the Northern Strike theater. If a company does not include a Titan squad, it cannot play in Titan matches. If an Army does not have at least one Titan squad, it will automatically forfeit any Titan deployments. Map layout is in three tiers. The first, and largest tier is the Front, the second Tier is the Occupied Territory, the third tier is The Siege. The Siege is the Army HQ. If the defending Army wins this map, the campaign is pushed back to their own OT. Each Army has a "Headquarters", a map chosen by their commander. Once the army loses on that Map, the campaign is over. The HQ can only be attacked by the opposing Army once all OT (second tier) maps have been conquered. There are 14 maps in Total. 5 European, 5 African, and 3 Northern Strike Maps, and Highway Tampa. Each tier is as follows : 2 HQ Maps, 4 OT Maps (2 per side), 7 Front Maps. Once an Army has majority control of the 8 Front Maps (5 Engagements), all conflicts push to the enemy OT maps. The invading army MUST capture both OT maps in order to move to the HQ map. If the OT maps are split, they will be replayed. If the defending Army wins both maps, fighting returns to the Front. The supreme commanders will pick their maps in a "draft". The SC will pick one HQ, and two OT maps. All remaining maps will be played as The Front. A draft will be held for BC's and companies. A player must join a squad, and that SL must commit to a BC/Company. BC's can choose specialty companies (such as an Airborne company, Armor, or Infantry company,) or choose to take multiple Squads from each category. __________________ **11th AIR Tactical WikiTG Gentleman's AgreementBecome a Supporting Member New To TG? Start Here! ***

01-26-2008, 12:25 AM	#57 (permalink)
Cpt.Pierce Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 80	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today skullhedman, you've got something there. I would play that game __________________ Await the moment for one, and only one, well aimed shot.

01-26-2008, 06:55 PM	#59 (permalink)
INSUNABULA Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto Age: 30 Posts: 1,526	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today As a games developer for an up-coming MMOG I have inside experience with the issues you're concerned with. I can categorically say that: BFH will not allow you to purchase upgrades with respect to performance It is morally ambiguous and in some countries illegal. The "microtransactions" are in regards to aesthetics that will not impact gameplay (unless you purchase a glowing-neon pink helmet that can be seen from miles around - in which case be prepared to be head-shot a lot) __________________ * INSERT RIBBONS HERE *

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links