PDA

View Full Version : What Epic should take from BF2


rhirud
8th Jul 2005, 05:24 AM
BF2 is the current latest online multiplayer teamgame; and there are a few things that Epic can take form it, I think.

The first.
a. Our current crappy Ut2004 server browser - all is forgiven EA have proved that things could be a lot, lot worse.

b. Fixed single online identity - a very good idea. But each name should have 2 parts - a "name" and then 5 characters for a "tag". The name is unchangable without creating a new character and a new set of stats, but the tag should be easy to change.

Currently, clanplayers with EA have to start a new character from scrath each time they want to change their tag.

c. Squads. This is a very very good idea. Being allowed to spawn on your squadleader is a really nice idea; It would wreck and imbalance Onslaught, but in large conquest maps, it could work well.

Perhaps it could be ammended so that there is a 15 second spawn delay if you use a squadleader as a spawnpoint, and during that 15 seconds, the squad leader has a visible icon on the map that petrays his position to the opposing team.

d. Commander implementation - this works very well

e. Character progression based on player score- promotes selfish and un-teamlike behaviour. Something to avoid like the plague.

Wowbagger
8th Jul 2005, 06:03 AM
After playing BF2 and been in the "scene" for a couple of weeks i must agree that Epic (altho i havent been too happy with them occasionally either) is to EA/Dice like a DeLorean to a Trabant. Im thinking of the Server Browser and the Account Name mostly here plus the slow response on bugs that Epic wouldave released a patch for in 1-2 days.


Squads, in short, its brilliant! and very well implemented.
BF2 has "borrowed" the Community Page from UT2004 so theres nothing wrong with borrowing this from BF2 and put it in UT2007 :)

Commander, the same, brilliant, when "simple" features like these are made you wonder why noone has done it earlier.

Playernames/Accounts, its stupid beyond belief. Avoid at ALL COSTS!!!
I do like the idea of a more "responsibility developing" approach.

Olga
8th Jul 2005, 06:18 AM
Ut2007 needs multi-user support.

Mulch_D
8th Jul 2005, 07:52 AM
What I'de like to see for accounts is that each CD key gives you one online account, when you start multiplayer for the first time it asks you if you would like to create a new multiplayer account from scratch or use a pre-created one. If you select to create a new one then you say use this CD key, or enter another one then set your user name (not your player name) and password. This then uploads your user.ini to the epic master server.
After that you can create more multiplayer accounts (using different CD Keys of course) or log into others, the next time you go into the multiplayer section it will ask you for your username (with the deafult set to the last one you used) and password giving you the option to save password.
Finaly if you log onto your account from another computer it will download your user.ini so you have all your settings already there.
This is the account used to track stats, and from the UT2007 homepage you can log in and change some of your settings (user name, password, ingame name etc.)
Also CD Keys could be bought online for a slightly reduced cost, so that each house-hold only needs to purchase the game once but can get many CD Keys.

Sir_Brizz
8th Jul 2005, 08:41 AM
Commander, the same, brilliant, when "simple" features like these are made you wonder why noone has done it earlier.
http://pc.ign.com/objects/481/481954.html

Lifted. This was never a new idea, I've been working on the design for a game involving this sort of things since late 1990's. Savage did it VERY well, IMO. One of the most fun games available. Faster paced than BF2, at least, but then...what isn't :) (Don't say Halo please!)

Wowbagger
8th Jul 2005, 09:00 AM
We all have "great" ideas ;) the trick is to have it in a good game.

Sir_Brizz
8th Jul 2005, 09:03 AM
that's why I linked the game above :) It was made by an independant developer, and won the Independant Games Festival this year and last year. And it was done before BF2.

I'm not saying it's bad in BF2, I'm just saying it's nothing "new" or "spectacular" but it is done right, and I guess in the end that's all that really matters :)

BITE_ME
8th Jul 2005, 09:50 AM
What Epic should take from BF2:
Nothing. The game sucks ass. Any game that will not play with all the eye candy at 1024x768 on a 850 PE 0r 6800 OC is a joke (I bought both cards.).
So Epic. The day the game comes out. Just make sure it's playable with the video card of the day, with all the eye candy on. Just like 2004. Or I'll drive by your houses at 3:00AM honking my horn.:D

rhirud
8th Jul 2005, 10:02 AM
Any game that will not play with all the eye candy at 1024x768 on a 850 PE 0r 6800 OC is a joke

Operation flashpoint still can't be played on it's highest settings on today's PC's!! :lol:

Selerox
8th Jul 2005, 10:03 AM
What Epic should take from BF2: Nothing.

Agreed. UT2007 already has a Commander system built in. The rest is a non-starter.

Wowbagger
8th Jul 2005, 10:23 AM
Agreed. UT2007 already has a Commander system built in. The rest is a non-starter.

Do you even know how well Squads work in BF2 Sel? (im not sure if you ever tried the Demo?)
Its an amazingly simple feature that improves TP, ALOT.

It will only be useful in Onslaught or Conquest but i thought that was obvious.

rhirud
8th Jul 2005, 10:38 AM
Well...... Conquest mode has the concept of a commander rather than a commander; conquest, from what I hear is mainly on paper (or was up to a few months ago) - and the whole question of how a commander functions and can give orders to his team is not an easy one.

BF2's solution of having the commander give orders to squad commanders, and squad commanders giving orders to individual teamplayers works very nicely indeed; rather than making the commander a micro-manager.

Another thing that's good is "dammage assists" - if you take >50% of a player's health and a teammate finishes him off, you get credit for that.

Another issue is who gets to be commander - the "vote" and "muntiny" system seems better than encouraging stats whoring by allowing the highest ranked player to have these roles - which is one way of implementing squad leaders and commanders.

Just because BF2 has masses of bugs does not mean that there are a few lessons in there - mainly what not to do; but there are some nice touches.

Selerox
8th Jul 2005, 11:49 AM
Do you even know how well Squads work in BF2 Sel? (im not sure if you ever tried the Demo?)
Its an amazingly simple feature that improves TP, ALOT.

It will only be useful in Onslaught or Conquest but i thought that was obvious.

I played the demo, it was so bugged to hell I didn't play it for long, I guess squads could work in ONS/CON, but thats about the only feature that'd work.

Myrmidion
8th Jul 2005, 12:19 PM
I don't really think UT2k7 needs anything like character progression. I mean, it's a really nice little touch in BF2, but it does mean that people will be more likely to go glory seeking than work as a team (I know I'm vulnerable to this, for a start ;)). A better idea might be -in the next Battlefield- to have progression based on squad performance, which would a) get people in squads, and b) get them working as a team.

Anyway - I digress. I don't think that UT2k7 would work with unlockable weaponry, since you just -know- that there's going to be some all-powerful rocket barrage weapon in there. It's gotta be a lot harder to balance all freaky-deeky energy weapons and stuff then it is to balance assault rifles of differing calibres.
However, for both casual play and clan matches a squad system within the game would do wonders for organisation, as well as the ability for people to see team members on an overhead map. :)

That demo was not bugged to hell - I've had more issues with the game itself than I did with the demo. :)

gregori
8th Jul 2005, 02:32 PM
unlockable weapons would suck.......
thats not what ut is about!

Black_Seeds
8th Jul 2005, 04:35 PM
As far as accounts in games go I think NOVALOGIC (Delta Force games, Joint Ops) has got it the best. It pretty much works the same as the way Mulch_D described it.

BigFreak
22nd Jul 2005, 04:42 AM
What I'de like to see for accounts is that each CD key gives you one online account, when you start multiplayer for the first time it asks you if you would like to create a new multiplayer account from scratch or use a pre-created one. If you select to create a new one then you say use this CD key, or enter another one then set your user name (not your player name) and password. This then uploads your user.ini to the epic master server.
After that you can create more multiplayer accounts (using different CD Keys of course) or log into others, the next time you go into the multiplayer section it will ask you for your username (with the deafult set to the last one you used) and password giving you the option to save password.
Finaly if you log onto your account from another computer it will download your user.ini so you have all your settings already there.
This is the account used to track stats, and from the UT2007 homepage you can log in and change some of your settings (user name, password, ingame name etc.)
Also CD Keys could be bought online for a slightly reduced cost, so that each house-hold only needs to purchase the game once but can get many CD Keys.
This is a some good stuff. I've always thought storing your config on a central server would be a good idea. If they optimised it so that only things that affect online play directly were stored in a seperate file (character config, name, key binding etc, but no nessesarily graphics options, etc), it would be a tidgy tiny config file that you could fit the bits of onto a post-it note (maybe). So yeah, good call.

JaFO
22nd Jul 2005, 05:06 AM
I think that the 'squad'-system is definitely something that could be used in CTF as well as ONS/Conquest.
I mean ... wouldn't it be great if you could easily setup a squad for flag-captures and another one for base-defense ? Sure ... clans already do such stuff, but public servers rarely have people acting as a team. IMHO one of the reasons is that it is needlessly difficult to communicate such things as you're rarely aware where every other teammember is. In BF2 you simply join a squad and track the leader's icon on the map.

In BF2-demo it did help new players play as a team instead of as lone wolfs on public servers. It didn't prevent players from playing on their own, but at least it made it easier for those that *wanted* to play as a team to do so.

// --
UT2kx already has multi-user capability. The GUI just isn't designed to handle such things.

shadow_dragon
22nd Jul 2005, 06:02 AM
Defiantely like the squad absed stuff and can't see why it wouldn't work in CTF and other team based games, as Jafo said, in games like CTF teamplay is rare as players rarely know where each other are.
That said though there would need to be a squad limit so that the WHOLE team couldn't just spawn by on a guy that camps inside the enemy base for example. Squad limits of 3-4 seems fair to me.

JaFO
22nd Jul 2005, 06:18 AM
BF2 has a squad-sizelimit of 6 AFAIK
I think 4 would be good for UT-series since the maximum number of players is most likely to be 16 (4 squads / 1 offense + 1 defense) anyway.

It probably would require some kind of target-id (for squadmembers only) as used by Troopers to be useful.

Wowbagger
22nd Jul 2005, 06:41 AM
I think atleast as a headsup to how people in your team are intending to play its good.

Lets say that when you join a CTF game you get to choose Attack, Midfield or Defense.
It wouldnt hurt if your choices was reflected on your skin somehow either.

This way when playing on publics you would see that youre 10 men on attack and 2 on defense giving you the "subtle" hint that helping out in Defense is a GOOD idea atm ;)

This idea is WITHOUT the Squadleader and Spawning on them since that would tear the gametype apart.

edhe
22nd Jul 2005, 07:54 AM
Not skin reflected, but shown in the team name above the head (i think a second field could easily be added to that).

JaFO
25th Jul 2005, 04:18 AM
...

This idea is WITHOUT the Squadleader and Spawning on them since that would tear the gametype apart.
I'd agree that 'spawning on squadleader' might cause problems in CTF given the map-size and such, but OTOH you'd be spawning with just your default weapon & armor.

I also think that 'squads' should have a leader, since there's no point in having a squad if you can't have one guy tell it where to go.

And finally I doubt that having fixed names for squads is going to help as I doubt that the 'defense'-squad will stay as defense (except in clan-games).

I just thought of something : UT2kx already has a voice-command ('I'm on defense/offense' IIRC). Using that command could automagically assign you to the squad for that task.
At the very least the task of forming and disbanding/leaving squads should be as intuitive and 'in yer face'(tm) as possible. One of the reasons that in BF2 people might not join squads initially is because that part of the interface is a bit hidden.

Wowbagger
25th Jul 2005, 04:31 AM
Well if you deliberatly join the squad named Defense it should to some degree make you play a bit defensly.
Atleast compared to how it is now with everyone "in the same squad" and 99% play freelancer.(on pubs)

And regarding it "hidden" in BF2, thats why i wanted it to popup om serverjoin.
It should have a "remember my choice" checkbox for those that are allergic to it (there always is) so that if you hate the idea just click "midfield" (or whatever) and "remember my choice".

Edit: hmm maybe thats a bad idea that could ruin the concept.
Maybe its better to hide it in the inis or something.

JaFO
25th Jul 2005, 04:38 AM
But the problem with that is that casual players won't understand the concept of 'midfield'.

And it is those players you'd want to teach a bit about teamplay before they turn into yet another glory-hound ...

I'd even argue that most clans have different ideas about what 'midfield'-players should be doing.

Wowbagger
25th Jul 2005, 05:06 AM
Well call it Free Super Hero Agent then :D

rhirud
25th Jul 2005, 05:27 AM
Spawning on squadleaders would also wreck ONS. The big difference between UT and BF2 is the pace. It can take ages to get somewhere interesting in BF2 -and there is spawn delay.

So if you are in a firefight in ut2004 against a squad and as soon as you shoot one of them, they resapwn again; that would be awful. Adding a spawn delay to fix this would also be awful.

But knowing where your squadmates are on a map, and acting in concert with them would be great.

Wowbagger
25th Jul 2005, 05:44 AM
Hmm yea maybe.
TBH im not that much into ONS but Conquest maps seems to be REALLY big.