What Epic should take from BF2

[rhirud]

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]

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]

Ut2007 needs multi-user support.

[Mulch_D]

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]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

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]

We all have "great" ideas the trick is to have it in a good game.

[Sir_Brizz]

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]

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.

[rhirud]

Originally Posted by BITE_ME

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!!

[Selerox]

Originally Posted by BITE_ME

What Epic should take from BF2: Nothing.

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

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Selerox

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

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]

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]

unlockable weapons would suck.......
thats not what ut is about!

[Black_Seeds]

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]

Originally Posted by Mulch_D

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]

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]

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]

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.