What I Think A Battlefront Game Should Actually Be

Asrien · January 11, 2016

Hi! Bit of an intro before I paste the contents of a text document I prepared last week. I've played all the Battlefront titles, not just 1, 2 and the lame EA one, but the PSP titles developed by Rebellion. In my eyes the EA release was an affront to what the series should be, and in response to that I wrote the large-ish slab of text you'll see soon-ish. Main reason I'm mentioning my Battlefront experience is so that this doesn't come across as "this lame bastard has no idea what he's talking about, he has no credibility" and this is true only in the sense that I don't know the practical elements of game design. I do know what I like, and I know what I've seen in games recently, so I've got a kind of okay idea of what's realistic. My ideas listed below certainly border on what can be done, but I always think about my game ideas in a ridiculous scope. If people care about this I might chuck some other ones out there because it'd be awesome to see people show an interest, or hell maybe even decide to try and realize one of them.

Large block of text hither:

How I'd do a Battlefront.

-Backdrop of multiplayer component has players going on "Tours", wherein a ship is selected based on player preference of planet.

-Ship is either Imperial or Rebel, potentially a third "Slaver" option for Free For All gametype wherein each player is forced to

fight to the death, wearing neither Imperial nor Rebel colors. While matchmaking progresses players in "Slaver" have the option of

"vote for uprising", which would turn into an escape from the slaver ship/s where the first vote caster is given freedom first,

and can choose to free other players for a points bonus or get out alone, which would likely result in death given NPC hostility.

Co-operation would be encouraged, but there would be no formally designated teams, so if players felt like killing each other they

could, this allows this mode to be diverse, open and player-driven.

-Once player selects their ship they're shown a list of other players/npcs aboard and their character classes. Player selects their

class based on available slots.

-Optional command structure available, allowing players to opt into deciding on playing an "officer", which would designate them as

a high value target, but also give them an efficient overview of player statistics for those under their command. Can assign optional

objectives or form battleplans, which would manifest as paths and iconography on the HUD. This would be an optional overlay on the

end user's side, to prevent players from being annoyed by objectives they don't care about.

-Officers are able to provide promotions to players either from the command deck (between game menu/matchmaking purgatory), or mid-battle.

Promotions allow players to request support or ordnance, which would be delivered by other players or NPCs based presence in each engagement, limits per match.

Also allow access to certain cosmetic options, such as rank-based insignia. Will be a filtering process server-side to ensure that a player

can't recieve certain ranks if they have a K/D Ratio implying undeserving performance.

-Medals provided to certain players at the end of each match and each tour based on performance in certain areas, players who excel often will be offered special

class options on the battlefield (special operations will be decided by quality of gameplay over a series of games, specops players will gain access to special tours)

-Each tour will consist of a certain number of matches, wherein a match will take place on a planet. Each ship can contain enough players to take on multiple matches per

planet concurrently. For example if multiple points of interest are present on a world, players can opt to select the match which they prefer, and performance across

all engagements can have an influence on a "final push" attack. If each initial match has the same winner then they are granted extra tickets or a bonus decided by the officer

and by a vote.

-Players who consistently perform above average will be placed in levelled games, unless they opt in to be "field officers", who act as mentors or guidance to less experienced

players. If a field officer consistently outperforms all other players in a game by a certain margin a vote will be called to decide if they are guilty of poor conduct, in the event

of this they will be stripped of Officer rank and automatically pushed into levelled games. A warning of this will be issued prior to opting into field officer rank to ensure fairness.

-Difference between standard high-achievers and spec-ops will be decided based on officer suggestion and performance in levelled matches, if a high achiever earns x commendations they

will be offered spec-ops privileges, granting them cosmetic options different from those of an officer-promoted special operative.

-Spec-ops missions will take on a more objective oriented or High Priority approach than standard matches, special operatives will be granted access to warp-equipped ships available in-tour,

so that if they so choose they can take on a spec-ops mission in place of a standard match, assuming one is available.

-Spec Ops missions are high priority and high risk, so not only will players be against foes of equal level, there will be a danger from elite NPC foes such as Jedi or Sith.

-Space Battles will be present. During the "Disable Orbital Defenses" (DOD) gametype, which will be the initial match on many planets (unless players on both teams vote to skip this) players can

fight on the ground, in the air or in orbit. They will choose spawn points on land or onboard their flag ship. Players can orbitally drop from space via escape pods, which can also be

jettisoned by hostiles assuming they get aboard and to the correct control panels.

-It will not be possible to win at a DOD match without disabling the enemy's command ship. Disabling of the command ship will result in either its explosion and any surviving hostile players making

a last stand on the ground, where the ship may crash (pieces of the ship will end up on the ground when the ship is disabled regardless of how peacefully disability is achieved).

Once their ship is disabled the players' tickets will be reduced to a number equal to 3x the number of escape pods that have made it to ground (in the event of ship destruction escape pods

auto-eject, so assuming that pods weren't jettisoned by the enemy team there will be a chance of victory still). If the stranded team still has tickets at the end of the game a new command ship will

be called in with reinforcements. This will allow players on this tour to continue in successive matches on the same planet, and allow new players to come in also.

-Heroes will be handled differently. They will be present in select tours and matches based on where they take place, they will initially be in-game as NPCs until someone kills them, then the highest

performing player at that time on whichever team the hero is on will be granted the option to switch to playing as them, this will not kill their own character, who will switch to being NPC controlled.

NPC controlled player characters will not have their stats recorded, but it isn't fair to kill someone who hasn't been killed.

Duration of hero lifespan when player controlled will be the same as if they were a normal player, however they will score no points from killing standard players, they will gain points by defending

teamates from the enemy team, and will gain more points by defending against the enemy hero. Each time a hero kills the other that player will be granted a special commendation, one which grants special

cosmetic items. These will be difficult to acquire and also have some significance (a player who kills someone like Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader x times will be granted their lightsaber and an emblem

for their character. The lightsaber will be non-functional and simply serve as a trophy, multiple trophies will be wearable at the same time).

-In spec-ops players will not be able to control heroes, and in instances where heroes are present they will often be leading the mission or providing the objectives.

-While onboard ships waiting for tours to progress or for matches to start players can opt to mess around aboard the ship or on the ground (based on where they were prior). Combat stats during this time will

be recorded differently, so if an enemy is also messing around and decides to come to your area you can kill them for "defence" stats, these will be recorded as "times defended" or "enemies killed defending",

there will be commendations associated with this.

-Players not even on tours will be able to mess around on their faction's main base. There will be no hostiles here except for in rare events. This will be the main and most immersive place for players to

customize their player character. This can also be done on-board ships, but cosmetic changes will be more basic, and unlocking new loadout options will depend on the presence of a high level quartermaster.

-Quartermasters are players who play with a wide variety of weapons, and if a player upgrades their loadout while one is aboard the same ship the quartermaster is granted progress towards better weapons and

armour, the quartermastery stat will be one of multiple responsible for upgrading, so players can't just farm the experience of others for better gear.

-Cosmetic/player customization will be limited in terms of what can be done, to avoid losing immersion, but it will be flexible and allow a fair bit of personalization still.

Players will create their character for each faction at the beginning of the game, this will entail facial features, species and race. Racial limitations will be present based on faction.

-Armor will be able to have marking placed based on number of kills, can have custom grime to an extent. Officers will be able to report players who excessively personalize (no dicks on armor).

-Spec ops player will have access to special over-all paintjobs for their armor, officers will have special decals available which designate rank, while an officer is playing AS an officer they

will be required to have this rank visible on their armor.

-Available epochs for play: Galactic Civil War/early New Republic. First Order vs New Republic. Trade War as a potential expansion or DLC.

-Singleplayer mode. Offers similar functionality as multiplayer but with NPCs in place of players. Split into Skirmish, Playlist and Campaign modes.

Campaign can be played to give the multiplayer character more story, single-player character from Campaign can be taken over to Multiplayer and this will make narrative sense.

Campaign starts off with character on their homeworld, they volunteer for either the Rebellion or the Imperial Army. Can switch sides later on if desired. Singleplayer serves as

a three-act tutorial. First act gets player acquainted with ground combat over the course of two tours, following either Vader and the Emperor or Han and the Rebels, occurs over the

course of the original trilogy, jumping from the Battle of Yavin to the Battle of Hoth and then the Battle of Endor. This makes up the first tour. The second tour will be a space battle

on Naboo followed by a space battle over Akiva, jumping to battle over Jakku. After the battle over Jakku time will fast-forward to a few months before Force Awakens, playing as First Order or

Resistance, based on player choice. If they choose to be First Order their character will be brainwashed (this option will only be available to appropriate races) and become a stormtrooper,

a training mission/tutorial will occur and based on performance on this mission the player will be given their starting rank for multiplayer, then the player will participate in a Simulation

mission wherein they are sent to Coruscant to kidnap Princess Leia and gain intel on Luke Skywalker's whereabouts. Simulation will consist of a space battle followed by an urban incursion.

Player will operate with a small team and travel through the streets of Coruscant, there will be a heavy civilian presence with Alliance and thugs mixed in. Player will have to recognize armed combatants

and will be given multiplayer rank based on accuracy neutralizing targets, so killing innocents is discouraged and penalized. Upon completion of this mission the player will be given the option to import their

single-player character to multiplayer, or convert their character stats to multiplayer taking on a new appearance. Single-multiplayer conversions will be entitled to cosmetic items and commendations based on

singleplayer achievements (no collateral damage, tour medals etc).

BTGBullseye · January 13, 2016

I voted "The Gods will shame you for this, and so shall we." simply because you don't have any form of middle ground options on the poll. (shame on you for being a 'those not with me are against me' type)

I think it should be a persistent universe similar to Planetside 2, except with space and ground combat for each planet instead of 4 continents total. The choosable factions should be: ([base] is an unmodified item or non-capital ship)

Empire. They have all the standard Empirey style items, they have the best [base] infantry weapons and armor available at character creation. Minimal customization of the weapons, uniforms, ships, or anything else. (especially in the way of cosmetics) Best capital ships in the game. Increased space spawn tickets. (x1.0-x1.5 depending on the location's canon allegiance) Reach 'Elite' level, and you can get all of the top-level Mercenary upgrades for weapons and armor. (non-cosmetic only, ships included)
Rebels. Weakest [base] items at character creation, but a lot more customizations for almost everything. (can make the weakest weapons on-par with the best [base] weapons in the game with the high-level modifications) Less expensive customizations/modifications and upgrades. (x0.8) Uniforms include select civilian attire, (only available at high levels) as well as uniforms in the style of Rebels from the movies. Best [base] non-capital ships in the game, capital ships are second only to the Empire. Increased ground spawn tickets. (x1.0-x1.5 depending on the location's canon allegiance) Reach 'Elite' level, and you can get all of the top-end Mercenary infantry weapon and armor upgrades, as well as all Mercenary [base] ships.
Mercenaries. Ultimate in customizability. (access to all mods and cosmetics, best top-level mods) Mid-grade [base] items, but take a lot more money to upgrade/mod. (3x-5x is my guess, but needs a little playtesting to properly balance it) All civilian attire available, add Rebel Infantry and Stormtrooper attire at high-level. (meaning no officer attire) Worst non-capital [base] ships in the game, but highest variety and customization. Reach 'Elite' level to get access to all weapons, armor, and attire from the other factions. (Basically every non-Elite item and mod is available to them at this point)
Slavers. Civilian attire, minimal item modifications, (only low-level mods available) cheaper modifications/upgrades, (x0.75-x0.85, requires playtesting to get balanced values) access to all [base] infantry items for all factions, extra spawn tickets during ground combat. (x1.0-x3 depending on how remote the location, more remote = higher multiplier) Reach 'Elite' level to get extra modifications, (all mid-level, and some high-level mods) and better [base] items. (all mid-grade and some high-grade [base] items)
Hutts. Same as Mercenary, except with better starting equipment, (mid-level [base] items available at character creation) reduced level requirements for everything, (mid-level items have low-level equivalent requirements) lower amount of credits earned, (you have to give 10-20% of everything you make to the Hutts, depending on proximity to canon Hutt 'homeworlds', closer = higher percentage) and reduced spawn tickets. (x0.75-x1.0 depending on remoteness, more remote = higher multiplier, increased to x1.25 on canon Hutt 'home planets')

Item mod levels: (level 0 is character creation, and I'll get to that later)

Low-level. Basic optical scopes, minimum magazine size increases, slightly improved armor resilience, etc. For levels 1-15.
Mid-level. Improved zoom optical scopes, better magazine size increases, basic scout scopes, (targeting leads tracked enemies and shows their health) improved armor resilience and resistance, etc. Levels 16-30.
High-level. Best optical scopes, drum magazine upgrades, improved scout scopes, (shows more enemy info, better zoom, tracks more enemies for longer) shielded armor, etc. Levels 31-65.
Top-level. Best recon scopes, huge magazines, exotic ammunition, reflective shielded armor, etc. Levels 65+.
Elite. Exotic faction specific mods. Level 100.

Character creation: (all are based on what faction is chosen)

Basic cosmetic choices. (these apply their choices to all classes at once, no class specific mods allowed)
[base] equipment choices for each class.
Initial skill point choices. (strength, speed of movement with light/medium/heavy armor, skill with laser weapons, piloting, etc.)
Basic training. Skippable. (runs you through basic ground combat mechanics and tactics)
Flight training. (runs you through basic piloting mechanics and tactics)

Leveling:

Leveling stops at level 100, but unlocks Elite game modes and items/mods at 100.
Is not an increasing XP value per level. Level 0-1 takes the same XP as level 99-100.
Adds 1 skill point per level. (can stack all on a single skill, but logarithmically lower returns the higher you go on a skill)
Adds bonus credits each level. (will require playtesting to determine a balanced amount)
At least 1 item or mod unlocked at each level for all factions from level 1-99.

Elite mode:

Unlocked access to Elite mode items/upgrades based on faction.
Unlocked Elite mode matches that are only for elite mode players.
Scored on the Elite mode ladder, separate from the non-Elite mode ladder. (doesn't record lifetime XP earned, adds other scoring systems)
Increased credit earning rate in Elite mode matches. (x2)
XP penalty for entering non-Elite matches. (drop to level 90, but keep all purchased items/mods)

Match types:

Coruscant-type planet. Urban ground environment, high credit reward, lower XP reward.
Alderan-type planet. Semi-urban environment, moderate credit reward, moderate XP reward.
Remote-type planet. Various non-urban environments, low credit reward, high XP reward.
Kessel-type asteroid. Increased space combat, tunnel-based ground combat, high credit reward, high XP reward.
Destroyed planet. Space combat only, low credit reward, low XP reward. (only used for strategic assault locations)
Remote Space Base. Same as Destroyed Planet, except no giant rocks for cover.

Multiplayer combat types:

Space. Defending faction has 1 starbase of X level, X large capital ships defending the planet, and 2X smaller capital ships. (X = the base starbase upgrade level purchased by the owning faction prior to combat, maximum level 5) Minimum defenders are 1 large capital ship, and only happens if no space defenses are purchased. Attacking faction has an attacking fleet determined by the attacking force capability of the location it is coming from. (can be as much as double the number of capital ships, but that still doesn't guarantee victory)
Defending player must destroy all attacking capital ships, or run the attackers out of spawn tickets.
Attacking player must either destroy or capture the starbase, and complete the same objectives as the defending player.
Ground Conquer. Attacking faction starts with 1 of up to 7 spawn/capture points, (uncapturable) and must take them all to win. Defending faction starts with all other capture points, and only needs to run the attackers out of spawn tickets.
Ground Assault. Both attacking and defending factions start with 1 of up to 5 spawn/capture points, and must either capture and hold all points, or run the opposing faction out of tickets.
Ground Facility Defense. (only happens if defending faction has purchased at least one of each [base] base building) Attacking player must destroy a facility's defensive shield, and then capture the facility control point. If done within an allotted time, 1 of each [base] planetary upgrade is instantly installed on the planet at no cost. Defenders merely need to run the attackers out of tickets.
Deathmatch. Do I really need to explain this one?

Multiplayer metagame mechanics:

Persistent galaxy, similar to the style of Planetside 2, except with each planet from the Star Wars universe equivalent to a 'continent'. (map similar to the Empire at War RTS game)
Controlling different planets gives different bonuses to your faction. (similar to the Empire at War RTS game)
Can use your own personal credits to purchase fortifications and upgrades on owned planets.
Upgrades on faction controlled planets generate increased credit rewards from combat on neighboring planets, or improve offensive capabilities of your entire faction, or improve the planetary bonuses from the upgraded planet, or improve defenses on the planet they are installed on.
Can spend most of your XP, (drop 90% of levels/XP earned, minimum of level 1 to do this) all except for up to 1000? credits, (requires playtesting to determine a balanced amount) and most owned items to switch factions. (can choose 1 modded item or 3 items with no mods to transfer with you, faction item/mod restrictions don't apply until after the transfer)
Can play on a single-player map for 25% XP/credit rewards. (requires online access for multiplayer rewards to apply)

Singleplayer metagame mechanics:

Functions completely offline, but can apply 25% of earned XP/credits to the multiplayer side of your character if connected to the internet while playing.
Has a campaign of various types of attack/defend/etc missions that result in the total eradication of the faction most opposed to your chosen faction. (Empire|Rebels, Mercenaries/Hutts|Empire/Rebels, Slavers|Everyone, when multiple enemies are possible it is randomly chosen)
Allows for everything available in online except Elite mode and its rewards.

Squadron/Clan/Guild mechanics:

Has their own base in orbit around their faction's 'home planet'.
There are 5 levels of upgrades in multiple different areas. (placement and type determine interior layout of the starbase)
1. Structural. You have to have room for these upgrades, you can chose which ones to put where, but you have to have space for them.
2. Supply. Storage, manufacturing, and distribution systems for various supplies. (adds a clan store where you can purchase [base] items for a slight discount)
3. Defenses. Turbo lasers, shields, etc for the starbase, and defensive turrets at initial ground spawn points, etc.
4. Offensive. Additional frigates in space combat your clan helps start, pre-spawned free vehicles at spawn points at the start of ground combat, etc.
5. Research. Bonuses to shields, ability to build ion cannons or hypervelocity guns, etc. Exotic mods for anything. Adds store for purchasing mods at a slight discount.
6. Recruiting. Extra spawn tickets, reduced cost for [base] items, etc.

[*] Gains unique bonuses based on faction and purchased upgrades.

[*] Can activate 'clan wars', which allows opposing faction clans to attack your base, and you to attack theirs. Extremely lucrative wins, devastating loses.

[*] Unique logos, and flags. (flags are planted on capture points where one clan has the most time spent capturing the point, and if they are the most active clan by a majority when conquering/defending a planet, their logo is placed on the planet in the Galaxy view, and the clan bank gets a small revenue stream from the planet until it is next attacked)

[*] Unique emblems. Cosmetic only, is used in addition to faction markings on ships, and as a group marking for ground troops.

[*] Elite clans are clans that reach a certain upgrade level, (level 5 of all starbase structural upgrades, level 5 of all supply upgrades, and level 5 of all research upgrades) and allow for all members to purchase a custom weapon from the clan stores. (50% what purchasing the weapon and mods separately from the clan stores would cost) The weapon is created by the clan leader, and has no level limits. If the clan leader doesn't create a custom weapon, all [base] weapons above the player's level are available without purchase level restriction at 200% normal price. (modification level restrictions remain)

There is a lot more I want to add to all this, but I need to sleep... (it's 1:45AM, and I'm having to correct a LOT of typos now)

Asrien · January 13, 2016

Lol I didn't mean to have it as a "with or against" type thing, all your ideas as far as I've seen look pretty damn good, not sure about Hutts as a separate faction unless it's an elite splinter from mercs, since most Hutt clans are composed mostly OF mercs, that'd be a good elite faction component for them.

BTGBullseye · January 13, 2016

Lol I didn't mean to have it as a "with or against" type thing, all your ideas as far as I've seen look pretty damn good, not sure about Hutts as a separate faction unless it's an elite splinter from mercs, since most Hutt clans are composed mostly OF mercs, that'd be a good elite faction component for them.

Yeah, it's more of a slightly different version, meant mainly for those people who know exactly the items and mods they want to use for the rest of the game, and don't care that they don't have money to spend getting EVERYTHING in the game. It's also a better starting faction for learning the ins and outs of the game, then you just transfer to whichever faction you want. (part of why I included the faction transfer feature)

Asrien · January 13, 2016

Alright while I didn't mention the faction choosing I didn't mean that you choose one and stick with it for good, just for whichever tour you're doing. Also class-specific customization was an idea I had primarily because you need to be able to tell who's doing what job in-game, and if you just have generic customization it becomes harder and less immersive to differentiate, also in the Star Wars movies a demolitions expert wouldn't look the same as an Imperial officer if you get what I mean. Also I was thinking rather than using money to unlock armours and such you unlock upgrades and new cosmetics and stuff by fulfilling certain objectives. As for factions the rationale I had there was keep them equal so that people can play the side they want without getting upset, Hutts as the Spec-Ops branch of the Merc class would make a lot of sense though, and it would allow for an entirely different type of game, where a spec-ops team goes against a Hutt clan team on missions to like, take down or infiltrate an actual Hutt crime-lord's main outpost. But yeah even though I didn't fully articulate my reasoning I did put a fair bit of thought into why things in my list are the way they are, just didn't think to keep it all there. But basically unlockable better equipment and elite tiers of factions are probably better long-term than using "credits", because that's a system that can get exploited easier. Like, a bunch of tools start up a game and farm each other so they can buy the best stuff. Makes more sense to block off content by making a player fulfill certain requirements. Like "to upgrade this weapon/weapon component kill x enemies in x games". As for cosmetics those could make sense to have credits as the means of acquisition, but only some. Like, you can buy a different style of armor/clothing but to do full customization of it you have to break it in by wearing it in say, 5 games, then every 5 games or so after that you unlock a new thing to do with it, and when you unlock all the things you get the option to spend credits and upgrade it to the next tier. Basically just making the player earn stuff, it gives them a goal and more reason to stick around, and provides more objectives than just "win", which was a big deal to me. The Battlefront PSP titles did loadouts interestingly though, they'd give you a credit cap for your character, and you could equip different items based on that. A cap of some sort would need to be in place for loadouts anyway I think because otherwise the potential to be OP as hell is high. Though on the other hand the game's meant to have progression so that players are always matched with others on the same tier, so perhaps allowing them all full loadout control would make sense. That way it's truly a test of skill. I know I'm rambling but I'll finish with this:

All factions have equally powerful entry-level weapons, different names and different fx, but they're all equal, this makes it the player's job to excel, they can't just go blaming the faction they've chosen. As players progress they'll get better equipment no matter which side they're on, and once again this keeps balance. Also allowed would be to keep your weapon from one faction when you switch to another, the only limits on faction switching would be cosmetic and experience. Like, you can't switch from Empire to Resistance and suddenly be at the bottom of the ladder, your experience is persistent across factions, once again to keep balance. However if you switch faction after reaching a certain level you'll get some armor pieces and an emblem that give you like, a Stormtrooper shoulder-piece/arms or something so that people can see that you've played the other side for a decent amount of time. Basically I wanted the game to be about the players being given opportunity to excel, and recognizing them for that excellence. I have so many thoughts on this subject though it makes me want a job at DICE.

UndeadNecro · January 13, 2016

They should've have a mix of KOTOR & Battlefront 2. Now THAT would be a fun game. Battlefront 3 looked pretty good aesthetically, too.

Asrien · January 13, 2016

They should've have a mix of KOTOR & Battlefront 2. Now THAT would be a fun game. Battlefront 3 looked pretty good aesthetically, too.

Battlefront 3 was certainly a nice LOOKING game, but games should first and foremost be nice PLAYING things. As for the mix of KOTOR and Battlefron 2 depending on the parts you mixed it could be AMAZING. As a matter of fact just thinking about it now: A Battlefront with the Bioware style conversations in a campaign could be amazing. Make the campaign settings large and dynamic places that aren't just you vs an enemy. Have like, crowded city streets with people you talk to, who give you intel on where your objectives are and stuff. Go into a cantina and talk to the bar-tender about unsavory type characters and then possibly get ambushed and taken back to their base where the real action happens. I think the main thing would be fine tuning it well enough for it to feel like a Battlefront. Which would probably mean making the talking elements less prominent. But there's some AMAZING stuff that you could put in like Jedi and Sith factions that you can play as in a game-type all about using the force and lightsabers to fight each other for higher stakes.

BTGBullseye · January 13, 2016

But basically unlockable better equipment and elite tiers of factions are probably better long-term than using "credits", because that's a system that can get exploited easier. Like, a bunch of tools start up a game and farm each other so they can buy the best stuff. Makes more sense to block off content by making a player fulfill certain requirements. Like "to upgrade this weapon/weapon component kill x enemies in x games".

First off, people exploiting to get the best stuff doesn't actually make any sense with the design I said... Singleplayer mode can advance your multiplayer character. (albeit at a reduced rate)

Building game mechanics around what exploiters do is a fast way to lose a LOT of people that would otherwise be interested in the game. (especially since it won't actually stop the exploiters)

Also, think about it in a realistic situation... You have the money to be able to purchase the item you're staring at, but you can't because you have to go and do do 5 jumping jacks, then do a cartwheel and a barrel roll in a Tie Fighter just to be allowed to spend your money. It makes absolutely no sense. If you have the level (enough experience with weapons to be able to adapt to the new one) and the money, you should be able to get it without any absurd game mechanics.

it gives them a goal and more reason to stick around, and provides more objectives than just "win", which was a big deal to me.

Additional objectives provide additional unlocks and faster unlocks, yes. Forced additional objectives to get basic equipment, no. I don't want to have to capture a dozen production facilities just to get a slightly better weapon, instead of doing 5-20 rounds the way I want to and just buying the thing. Player choice is the biggest way to keep players interested, forcing them to play your way is the worst.

Think of it like this:

You capture a mining facility for your faction, then your faction wins the map. You will get a bonus to your credits.

You capture a vehicle production facility for your faction, and your faction wins. You get a small credit bonus and discounts when purchasing vehicles and vehicle mods.

You capture a bank, but your faction loses. You still get to keep the large bonus credits from capturing the bank, but your faction doesn't get the bonus credits. (faction bonuses require the conquering of the locations, personal bonuses are merely for capturing/killing/destroying/etc.)

My idea is to have hundreds of unique base items for each category for each faction, (weapons, armor, health kits, grenades, vehicles, ships, etc.) and dozens of mods for each item. It would take years of non-stop farming to be able to purchase everything. Each match would only give around 50 credits for a win without any additional objectives completed, and base weapons would cost in the thousands. (this means people would be doing a lot of matches, and a lot of additional objectives to be able to get items and mods a lot faster)

The Battlefront PSP titles did loadouts interestingly though, they'd give you a credit cap for your character, and you could equip different items based on that. A cap of some sort would need to be in place for loadouts anyway I think because otherwise the potential to be OP as hell is high. Though on the other hand the game's meant to have progression so that players are always matched with others on the same tier, so perhaps allowing them all full loadout control would make sense. That way it's truly a test of skill.

There are match level limits... Each level group (look at my "item mod levels" section) has their own combat, you don't get paired with anyone outside of that level group, and those within that level group will never be OP enough to dominate every match. (even if they had the maximum level for that level group, they wouldn't have gained enough money to purchase everything needed to become OP, and they wouldn't be at that level long, as they are gaining XP from every kill, and every capture)

All factions have equally powerful entry-level weapons, different names and different fx, but they're all equal, this makes it the player's job to excel, they can't just go blaming the faction they've chosen. As players progress they'll get better equipment no matter which side they're on, and once again this keeps balance.

This is the biggest turn off I have when playing a multiplayer game with different factions. It acts like you have a choice, but then you only have cosmetic differences between the factions, and it totally ruins everything. There are many differences and mitigating settings for why having completely different faction types will not be a bad thing. Making everything the same is just being lazy. (I don't want to play a clone of every other MP shooter out there with Star Wars cosmetics pasted over it, I want to see and feel the differences between factions that are supposed to be different)

The Slaver faction may have fewer mods for items, but they make up for it by having death mean a LOT less than other factions, and giving access to all other faction's base infantry items.

The Hutt faction make up for their seemingly OP starting equipment by making it take a LOT longer to improve any items you possess, and making death cost your faction a lot more than others.

There are many ways to make things balanced, but making every faction functionally the same is never a good one.

Also allowed would be to keep your weapon from one faction when you switch to another, the only limits on faction switching would be cosmetic and experience. Like, you can't switch from Empire to Resistance and suddenly be at the bottom of the ladder, your experience is persistent across factions, once again to keep balance.

I did mention a very good way of doing faction switching... The reason for losing 90% of your XP/levels is because you need to learn how your new faction does things, and how their weapons work. (and to build their trust... You did just come from their enemy, and you could be a spy) You also get to keep a single modded item (conceivably the best weapon available in the game) or up to three unmodded items. (a base armor from the top-end will definitely beat any modded armor available at level 10, but you won't be able to mod it until you're top-level again, which prevents you from having shields and other special mods on your armor at lower levels)

As for why you only get to keep a small amount of credits, it's because if you try to switch factions, you'll either need to pay a lot to move over, or you had to move fast or lose your opportunity. (you don't want to get killed by lugging 250lbs of money across an open battlefield trying to switch sides, do you?)

However if you switch faction after reaching a certain level you'll get some armor pieces and an emblem that give you like, a Stormtrooper shoulder-piece/arms or something so that people can see that you've played the other side for a decent amount of time. Basically I wanted the game to be about the players being given opportunity to excel, and recognizing them for that excellence.

Players need to be able to play their own way to excel, not be forced to play the way you, or I, do. Massive faction differences will help in player excellence, not hinder it. Building for a fast and agile character isn't the way I play, but it might be someone else's, and they might excel at that when I excel as a walking tank with heavy weapons that can't run if my life depends on it. Both play styles have valid uses, neither should be excluded simply because you personally don't excel at them or think that they are 'the best'.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You really need to split your posts up into paragraphs... This wall of text stuff is hard to read.

Asrien · January 13, 2016

I think we both kind of need to type less overall. It's a real bitch replying to slabs (and yes I'm clearly a hypocrite given my own initial post length).

I stand by my anti-exploitation rationale. Simply granting credits for doing games turns it from a game about fun into a game about credit farming, much like GTA Online becomes while waiting for rebalancing updates. This could certainly be solved by granting less credits per successive game, but that punishes legitimate players. It makes more sense to use an XP and/or skill-reward system when it comes to deterring exploitation, certainly simple exploitation at least. Perhaps a middle ground where you're given credits per-game as well as more per-kill or something, but this once again adds to the generalism of a game that makes sense class-based. The point of fulfilling certain tasks to upgrade certain gear in certain ways is so that when you're playing one class you have the ability to excel in it, and you'll FEEL like you've excelled when you've had to actually do things that make sense for the given upgrades. It's the whole jack of all trades master of none dilemma. By allowing players a generic way of getting their everything you limit the progression to being dependent on one variable. That decreases the time it takes to improve your character and gear, which in my eyes also limits the replay value somewhat, and will decrease the amount of time people will play for. Furthermore the other Battlefront games were class based and they sold amazingly.

In response to your second point: I'm not talking about these item-goals being for basic equipment, basic equipment would be available from the start, that goes without saying. How else could someone switch class and get far? These item goals are for upgrading your items to higher tiers of quality, rather than just "oh boy new gun to buy" the idea becomes "if I kill x players I can improve y component of this weapon, which will make my z much higher/better", it adds more incentive to play in different ways.

And another thing that could be done is just implement a credits-for-stuff system WITH the requirements for upgrade, a mix of purchasable and unlockable items and components. That way players who want to buy their way to victory can, and players who want to earn things can too. To incentivise skill-whores those items would have some form of shiny bonus, but it wouldn't greatly overshadow the credit-items.

In response to the second point: I believe that capture bonuses are always a good thing, and that granting items or progression towards items in exchange for the initial acquisitions of high value assets makes a great deal of sense. First-time you get a fancy gun or piece of apparel or equipment, then every other time you recapture that point you get credits.

In regards to the item quantity and cost I think 50C per game for weps that cost multiple thousands is a bit steep, especially with a copious library of items to try and get. It also strays into the sort of territory where players would complain about a LACK of micropayments, which is horrifying to think about, almost as much as their presence to begin with is. Lower item costs with a skill or xp requirement makes more sense. As a matter of fact replacing the specific item skill-requirements with an overarching skill system makes more sense. Like, Marksman skill which goes up whenever you get a headshot or scoped kill, other stuff within that skillset enables you to buy better mods for weapons. Things like that make sense, and allow the credit system to exist and work well (assuming you don't rip people off (add a commerce skill which decreases item cost or increases credit gain)).

Point 4: I recall saying something about balance in my initial notes. Players are granted ranks, as their ranks go up they're chucked in games with other players of matching ranks, or they can volunteer as "mentors" and play on lower-level matches in a support capacity, which would be treated as a responsibility which would be revoked if the mentors scores outshined too many others on their teams. In exchange for doing their thing right they'd get a credit bonus. Beyond that simply matching players based on rank makes sense, possibly even grouping them as long as they're within 1 rank of the median. For instance 4,5,6 would be group-able in the same game, median rank would be decided simply averaging the joined players in a lobby.

I agree with your point about factions, and if implemented in that way it would work well. As long as factions are balanced it's all good if they have different strengths and weaknesses, it enables players to go with what matches their play-styles better.

Your faction switching thing sounds a bit mental considering that weapons both in real life and in fiction generally follow a universal set of standards. For instance "this is a gun, it has a trigger, a barrel and sometimes a stock. I point and shoot", no matter what faction you're in that will hold true for that class of weapon. What you're suggesting sounds too much like post-endgame MMO rules, after you've fully maxxed out a character. This is a bit TOO extreme in a shooter or something like we're describing. What if you want to play with a friend and they're in a different faction? You won't want to switch if it means losing 90% of what you've earned. I'd say each faction has specialized weapons which you DO need training to utilize better, as well as having faction-specific skills (Hutts/Mercenaries get a tracking skill that highlights enemies on the HUD within a certain distance and with certain clarity based on its level, rebels get a "resolve" skill that allows them to buff allies within a certain range, once again its power depends on the skill's level, Imperials get the "overwhelming force" skill which gives them an intial boost in basic skills like marksmanship and vehicle operation, this skill goes up every 5-10 levels, each time after the first boosts xp gain by 1-5%, somewhere in that range, slavers get the "slaver" skill [lol] which gives them a chance to immobilize an enemy for a duration and with a chance both decided by the skill's level).

Switching credits between factions DOES sound suss so limiting credits to "smugglable" quantities makes sense, but make the brunt of your player fortune faction-dependent. So if you go from one faction to another whatever you earned on the first will remain, except for what you take over to the new faction. Where the same rule holds true.

I'm not sure what this last point is about, I wasn't saying anything in what you quoted about exclusion or hindering play-styles, the only thing I've mentioned at all that would do that is the class system, which I think really just structures play-styles anyway, as long as you cater to them. It was about rewarding players who do well in their chosen disciplines by giving them shit that visibly shows that. So if a player sticks with what they're doing long enough and then decides to give another faction a shot there will be a way for players to recognize their experience other than just rank, because players that switch faction will probably be less prevalent than those who do not, a player that achieves a high level of proficiency in multiple factions should be able to show that with shiny emblems and armor pieces, it gives personal satisfaction and has a "wow" factor to it.

And in the case of switching team in the middle of a battle I think doing that would only really work right if the switch put you in the shoes of a generic soldier with leveled gear. You don't get your mods, because turncoating in the middle of a game is a DICK move. In the event of players dropping mid-game the remaining players (assuming they still play properly) would get a bonus to xp and credits, 5% per dropped player. The way their conduct would be evaluated is "did their performance conform to their existing K/D Ratio and average points earned per match? If not slash their bonus. Furthermore to prevent punishment of people with shitty internet the game would be able to tell a clean quit from an internet drop-out, and in the event of an internet drop-out the game would keep that player connected on the server for a certain amount of time, so that when their internet returns they don't get dicked over by it. This would be limited to x times per day to prevent shitty internet from cramping good players with good internet.

BTGBullseye · January 15, 2016

I think we both kind of need to type less overall. It's a real bitch replying to slabs (and yes I'm clearly a hypocrite given my own initial post length).

I agree, but it seems we just keep doing it. Oh well, what can ya do... 8-)

I stand by my anti-exploitation rationale. Simply granting credits for doing games turns it from a game about fun into a game about credit farming, much like GTA Online becomes while waiting for rebalancing updates. This could certainly be solved by granting less credits per successive game, but that punishes legitimate players. It makes more sense to use an XP and/or skill-reward system when it comes to deterring exploitation, certainly simple exploitation at least. Perhaps a middle ground where you're given credits per-game as well as more per-kill or something, but this once again adds to the generalism of a game that makes sense class-based. The point of fulfilling certain tasks to upgrade certain gear in certain ways is so that when you're playing one class you have the ability to excel in it, and you'll FEEL like you've excelled when you've had to actually do things that make sense for the given upgrades. It's the whole jack of all trades master of none dilemma. By allowing players a generic way of getting their everything you limit the progression to being dependent on one variable. That decreases the time it takes to improve your character and gear, which in my eyes also limits the replay value somewhat, and will decrease the amount of time people will play for. Furthermore the other Battlefront games were class based and they sold amazingly.

There are existing anti-idle systems available, so idle farming wouldn't work in the first place. (like sitting idle for more than 2-3 minutes at a time or for a total of 1/3 of the total time spent in the match will result in no win/loss bonuses, and not spawning in counts as that idle time, and implementing a reporting function is a must for anti-cheaters anyways and this issue could be one reporting option) But think about players that are starting out, running around getting shot without scoring any kill points, should get nothing at all for their time? I think that they should get something, though not a lot. Credits & XP per kill, (10 Credits, 100 XP) per second capturing, (1 Credit, 10 XP) bonus Credits & XP per defending kill, (2x multiplier) etc.

Again, the problem stems from having to jump through hoops of completely unrelated things just to be able to purchase the item, this is one thing that has proven to be very off-putting for the vast majority of players when talking about long-term playability. Sure, it's fun the first couple times, but then it's nothing but tedium. And then you'll also have griefers coming in doing everything they can to just keep people from achieving those goals, which happens in ALL games that have the system you're specifying.

Yes, previous games were entirely class based, and they were relatively popular, but if you look at actual sales numbers, it wasn't that great. The latest gets its initial sales, and they will primarily be to see the higher fidelity graphics for the same game, but it won't be a long-term attention holding game, except for a small select few. (which is why I'm suggesting tried-and-true long-term attention holding mechanics that work on the vast majority of people)

In response to your second point: I'm not talking about these item-goals being for basic equipment, basic equipment would be available from the start, that goes without saying. How else could someone switch class and get far? These item goals are for upgrading your items to higher tiers of quality, rather than just "oh boy new gun to buy" the idea becomes "if I kill x players I can improve y component of this weapon, which will make my z much higher/better", it adds more incentive to play in different ways.
And another thing that could be done is just implement a credits-for-stuff system WITH the requirements for upgrade, a mix of purchasable and unlockable items and components. That way players who want to buy their way to victory can, and players who want to earn things can too. To incentivise skill-whores those items would have some form of shiny bonus, but it wouldn't greatly overshadow the credit-items.

I think you're missing the point, the design of the game is such that you will probably only be getting one or two weapons from the pool of dozens for each of the level groups. That weapon is a base weapon, designed to be modded. Same goes for the other equipable items. It may take you 20 rounds (about 4-8 hours of play time if you're a really low skill player) to buy a better base weapon, but you can probably mod your current weapon to have very similar improved performance, but spend a lot less money.

Besides, if you think about it realistically, would killing people or performing some random feat ever alter the weapon you're carrying, apart from wearing it out? No, it wouldn't. Realistically, you would need to go to a store, and buy a mod for your weapon, and attach it. Realistically, my niece that has never even held a firearm, could go down to a store, and purchase the best sniper rifle and all the best addons for it, then go learn to shoot it. (she wouldn't have to jump out a 2nd story window 6 times, and smash a car window to be allowed to purchase it, or have it given to her for free after she does those things) Realism is a LOT more engaging in the long term than unrealistic feats they have to repeat for every character to be able to get an item.

Regardless of whether you're giving them Credits to unlock something, or having them perform feats to unlock it, they are still doing the same work, and I'm proposing the same amount of Credit reward to effectively bring it on-par with the feats you're suggesting in value, but the player can put that reward towards ANYTHING they want to, not just the one single item you want them to get with that feat.

I also am not intending to do away with classes, but merely allowing the player to fully customize the loadout they use for those classes. (demolition classes would carry more explosives, but may be armed with any of the standard infantry weapons; the assault classes might have more total ammo, more hit points, and a slightly more stable aim; each class would have a trade off, and Credit + XP bonuses would come from completing class-specific achievements)

In response to the second point: I believe that capture bonuses are always a good thing, and that granting items or progression towards items in exchange for the initial acquisitions of high value assets makes a great deal of sense. First-time you get a fancy gun or piece of apparel or equipment, then every other time you recapture that point you get credits.

Possibly, capturing specific areas of specific planets might give you an item mod for free, (one that you could also already purchase for a rather low price) but not an entire item. (excluding an initial set of some items you get during training, grenades and healthkits and such) Remember, this is war, and both sides are likely going to be keeping a very close eye on any significant resources. (like any decent weapons)

In regards to the item quantity and cost I think 50C per game for weps that cost multiple thousands is a bit steep, especially with a copious library of items to try and get. It also strays into the sort of territory where players would complain about a LACK of micropayments, which is horrifying to think about, almost as much as their presence to begin with is. Lower item costs with a skill or xp requirement makes more sense. As a matter of fact replacing the specific item skill-requirements with an overarching skill system makes more sense. Like, Marksman skill which goes up whenever you get a headshot or scoped kill, other stuff within that skillset enables you to buy better mods for weapons. Things like that make sense, and allow the credit system to exist and work well (assuming you don't rip people off (add a commerce skill which decreases item cost or increases credit gain)).

50C is only for winning the match, not for everything you do in the match. (I'm thinking 25C for the losing team, just for them playing) I fully expect the low-skill players to be able to get at least 100C per match, and typically that would mean under 8 hours of play time to get enough for an entirely new base weapon or armor. (or they could mod their existing items with the same amount of money, and have better equipment until they hit the maximum mod capacity for that item, at which point they would need a better base item to improve above the level of their max-modded item) Remember, I'm thinking about long-term playability, not short term. (I'm using techniques that have been proven in many other MMO games to improve replay, and long-play value, as well as game addictiveness)

Skills I barely mentioned, but I kinda mislabeled what I was wanting for them. I was thinking more like attributes (strength, agility, etc.) as being the 1 point gained per-level, and skills are to be entirely separate. Skills would improve based on actions performed in-game, such as time while stealthed improves stealth skill which increases the amount/duration of stealth. (depends on how stealth is implemented, I would suggest cloaking devices only for 'infiltrator' classes, and stealth improves the duration of the cloak, but that stealth is also possible with all other classes if crouched in the shadows unmoving)

Point 4: I recall saying something about balance in my initial notes. Players are granted ranks, as their ranks go up they're chucked in games with other players of matching ranks, or they can volunteer as "mentors" and play on lower-level matches in a support capacity, which would be treated as a responsibility which would be revoked if the mentors scores outshined too many others on their teams. In exchange for doing their thing right they'd get a credit bonus. Beyond that simply matching players based on rank makes sense, possibly even grouping them as long as they're within 1 rank of the median. For instance 4,5,6 would be group-able in the same game, median rank would be decided simply averaging the joined players in a lobby.

And how would you automate this 'mentor' matchmaking and revoking system, much less prevent griefing with it? (I've participated in alphas and betas of games that tried this, and they couldn't find any way to reliably work it, and they weren't just idly talking about it on a forum without any actual game design experience)

I think you're still looking at this from the small map and population system of the older games, (32 players total, 16 on each side, no more than a few hundred yards across each map) whereas I'm looking at it from the Planetside 2 design. (hundreds on each side possible, maybe even thousands, and maps covering a couple square miles for the large ground maps, hundreds of miles for space) MMO design is very different from shmups of small rapidly respawning teams. (what the Battlefield series was)

I agree with your point about factions, and if implemented in that way it would work well. As long as factions are balanced it's all good if they have different strengths and weaknesses, it enables players to go with what matches their play-styles better.

Yup. It will take some mathematics, and playtesting to balance it properly, but it can definitely work. I've seen done it in other games, but they all ended up dying because funding was cut when the publishers realized they weren't making what I call a 'cookie-cutter-money-maker'. (a game that uses minimal functional differences, and a reskin, then portrays itself to be the 'new and exciting GotY')

Your faction switching thing sounds a bit mental considering that weapons both in real life and in fiction generally follow a universal set of standards. For instance "this is a gun, it has a trigger, a barrel and sometimes a stock. I point and shoot", no matter what faction you're in that will hold true for that class of weapon. What you're suggesting sounds too much like post-endgame MMO rules, after you've fully maxxed out a character. This is a bit TOO extreme in a shooter or something like we're describing. What if you want to play with a friend and they're in a different faction? You won't want to switch if it means losing 90% of what you've earned. I'd say each faction has specialized weapons which you DO need training to utilize better, as well as having faction-specific skills (Hutts/Mercenaries get a tracking skill that highlights enemies on the HUD within a certain distance and with certain clarity based on its level, rebels get a "resolve" skill that allows them to buff allies within a certain range, once again its power depends on the skill's level, Imperials get the "overwhelming force" skill which gives them an intial boost in basic skills like marksmanship and vehicle operation, this skill goes up every 5-10 levels, each time after the first boosts xp gain by 1-5%, somewhere in that range, slavers get the "slaver" skill [lol] which gives them a chance to immobilize an enemy for a duration and with a chance both decided by the skill's level).

The idea isn't to make switching factions as easy as switching classes... That would be very bad for faction player levels, as there WILL be groups that will flood a faction to conquer a large portion of the galaxy, then switch sides, and conquer it back, all to just get as many resources as possible. Making it non-lucrative to do so prevents these groups from forming, and brings it closer to standard MMO without preventing people from switching an established character to another side. (Credits and XP would be lost, but skills wouldn't)

I do like those ideas of faction linked skills. You can have the skill and its effects regardless of transfers, but you can only level it up if you're in the faction it's designed for. (you can only level the Resolve skill if you're in the Rebel faction, but you can switch to the Mercenaries and still have the skill at the level you last got it to) This would provide incentive to at least try each of the factions to some extent with each character. (the ones that will try and max out their character will play all the way through each faction just to get all the skills)

Switching credits between factions DOES sound suss so limiting credits to "smugglable" quantities makes sense, but make the brunt of your player fortune faction-dependent. So if you go from one faction to another whatever you earned on the first will remain, except for what you take over to the new faction. Where the same rule holds true.

The problem with that is the 'you just defected to the enemy' issue. What country will reward a turncoat by saving the money he has in the bank until he (maybe?) returns? The Star Wars universe is set in this one, and even a game should reflect that. The way you're proposing sounds very close to a cheat, which is something that most non-hacking players don't want in their games. (again, I've seen similar types of semi-cheat stuff introduced into other games, and it has outright killed them off, even if it was a minor thing, because it WILL be abused)

I'm not sure what this last point is about, I wasn't saying anything in what you quoted about exclusion or hindering play-styles, the only thing I've mentioned at all that would do that is the class system, which I think really just structures play-styles anyway, as long as you cater to them. It was about rewarding players who do well in their chosen disciplines by giving them shit that visibly shows that. So if a player sticks with what they're doing long enough and then decides to give another faction a shot there will be a way for players to recognize their experience other than just rank, because players that switch faction will probably be less prevalent than those who do not, a player that achieves a high level of proficiency in multiple factions should be able to show that with shiny emblems and armor pieces, it gives personal satisfaction and has a "wow" factor to it.

The problem is that it is a very unrealistic addition to the Star Wars universe. In Star Wars, you wouldn't advertise that you used to be a Stormtrooper while working for the rebels, nor that you were once a Rebel while now working for the Hutts. (it's a fast way to have a lot of bounty hunters coming after you with no limits on how they kill you)

Actually, that gives me an idea for a game mechanic. Switching sides doesn't give you any bling, but you get an added combat bonus against your previous faction, (like 1% bonus damage, or 2% armor penetration, or an easier time spotting cloaked members of that faction) but your previous faction gets a bonus 100 Credits every time they kill you, but only if you've been spotted/targeted. (look at the way spotting is handled in Planetside 2 to see what I'm thinking of, except that you stay spotted for a much longer time)

And in the case of switching team in the middle of a battle I think doing that would only really work right if the switch put you in the shoes of a generic soldier with leveled gear. You don't get your mods, because turncoating in the middle of a game is a DICK move. In the event of players dropping mid-game the remaining players (assuming they still play properly) would get a bonus to xp and credits, 5% per dropped player. The way their conduct would be evaluated is "did their performance conform to their existing K/D Ratio and average points earned per match? If not slash their bonus. Furthermore to prevent punishment of people with shitty internet the game would be able to tell a clean quit from an internet drop-out, and in the event of an internet drop-out the game would keep that player connected on the server for a certain amount of time, so that when their internet returns they don't get dicked over by it. This would be limited to x times per day to prevent shitty internet from cramping good players with good internet.

I wouldn't want to see any possibility of switching sides in a match at all. It's just not good for an MMO style game. (which is what I'd like to see the Battlefield series become, because then it would have a much larger playerbase for a LOT longer)

As for the internet drop-out thing, you probably haven't heard of firewall macros... It's where you block communication between the client and the server for a short period of time to allow you to 'teleport' somewhere without fear of being killed while moving there. It is quite common in games that function the way you're describing, (like Planetside 2) and also introduces rubberbanding in games that freeze you when you don't have a connection to the server. (like Star Trek Online) There is a way to do it that won't harm the players, but still allows for server connection losses... Just integrate the singleplayer bot code into the multiplayer matches. You link the bot code to the characters running around the map, and when the connection gets dropped, it seamlessly switches to bots using the bodies of the players that were in your match. (you get to keep any scoring you made while connected, but only get the SP reduced rewards for anything afterwards in the remainder of the bot match, your body in the online match is taken over by a bot for the rest of the online match) You of course would get a rather noticeable notification that you were moved to an offline bot match because of a connection problem, but this would be extremely beneficial in many ways. (including unexpected server downtimes not kicking people out of whatever match they're winning in the most awesome way, and not losing any of their earnings)

I have more to say, but it's early, I need sleep, and we both need less walls of text.

Asrien · January 15, 2016

Oh my god another one. O_O

Right! When I talk about fulfilling certain tasks to unlock shit I don't mean random ones. I mean stuff that makes sense, if you get x headshots you unlock a new scope. Do you see why that makes sense? Headshots require accuracy, scopes are a weapon component that assists with GREATER accuracy. When I say complete a task to upgrade a weapon component I mean stuff like that, basically prove that you have the skill with what you're using to use better versions of it. These are things that would likely unlock without the player even noticing anyway, because what they do to unlock new stuff will match their playstyle, and they'll likely end up buying stuff that suits how they play. But it means if a player wants to improve in a different area they've got a nice development pathway to do it, they can continue to improve a different weapon/skill and as they do they'll be able to tell because the equipment they use will start being and looking better. Sure it's not insanely realistic but it's a good way of pacing progression, so that you don't just farm money. And when I talked about credit farming idling didn't even factor into it. I'll continue with the GTA Online example: In GTA Online some jobs provided a great payoff, eventually this resulted in people farming those jobs over and over and over to buy new gear, but the gear was expensive so they'd basically spend up to 50 hours grinding. In my eyes grinding isn't really a fun way of playing a game, not one about going from place to place and shooting folks for the funzies.

Regarding your next thing about weapon customizability/variety etc: to me variety is the spice of life, having a small number of highly moddable weapons is good, having a large number of highly moddable weapons is better. Base weapons that you can pimp out extensively is great, but for a game in it for the long haul you need to have more tiers of gear. So a large catalog of customizable weapons makes sense. I'm thinking a selection of two to three per weapon type for every 5 levels, and another two per rank (ranks depend on accomplishment, level depends on xp gain). As for the "complete random feats" thing I never said shit about random. I'll re-iterate that you'd unlock new weapon mods and such by doing things that make sense in the context of those weapon mods. So you wouldn't be told to like, kill 10 enemies with one shot from a sniper rifle, because that would be ridiculous and more the sort of thing a shotgun would be good for. The requirements for new weapon mods (not, all but the super awesome ones) would make sense given what the mods are.

As for class loadouts I don't recall saying anything about limiting them to only class-specific weapons, they'd be able to use whatever they want, but obviously they'd be building their loadout based on their role and what they do. Once again on the subject of feats-for-gear it's about pacing. If you give them a lump credit reward to use on anything based on a specific task it changes the pacing and makes it more credit centric again, which just doesn't do well for a game's longevity. Given the number of tiers of gear and the number of levels etc that would be available, limiting purchase by making sure the player is actually proficient will pace players and make them prioritize what they want to get, and as a result will shape their character in a more distinct way than if you give them the full run of the arsenal. You also mentioned something about "repeating feats for every character", not sure what you're on about there. You'd be playing as one player avatar (unless you're mad and make more), that player avatar would be able to save a number of loadouts for use in different matches if they feel like doing something different, this loadout could be changed while waiting to respawn but obviously not just out in the field (unless you're at a command post). So the players would only do the task once per character, but that one character would be able to go far. A potential way to have the best of both worlds on the feats-credits issue would be to simply have the feats as pre-requisites for skill level-ups, and have skill requirements on gear. What these skills govern would be shown pretty clearly while customizing weapons by colour-coding each and matching its colour to the component it effects (yellow for accuracy, red for fire rate, orange for damage as an example).

I agree with your credit-y thing, I probably just misinterpreted what it was when I read it initially.

As for skills that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking. But there'd be a wide variety to cater to niches, which would also help players settle into a role better, instead of everyone hopping around mad doing the same thing, which doesn't garner teamwork in the slightest, a poor trait for any game where you pit teams against each other to achieve goals. It wouldn't be as rigid as a MOBA or something, but it would be a little more rigid than something like Halo. The idea is for a player to play the way they want, and gradually end up carrying out whatever role conforms to that, which is where the spec-ops tier of gameplay would begin to shine.

Regarding team-sizing and mentoring: The way this would work if we're assuming a single massive galaxy where you actually physically fly from one battlefield to the next (which would be damn cool if you got it working), is the game would analyze locations where there are lots of low level players, and offer singular high level players the option to help out, based on how they help out (using the previously mentioned stats) the game would decide to offer them another position or throw them from the mentoring pool. These offers would be something the player could turn off however, and when initially given the option they'd be given a "yes" "no" and "never" choice of decisions, in case they don't care for the mechanic at all. This system would also be the overall way of balancing the levels of players and where they're located. You'd have the game give you a series of locations where your assistance is warranted, if the player goes to these places to play they get bonus xp, credits and skill progression, and possibly a chance at a rare-ish shiny item. Players that get to a high level and constantly farm the noobs or hinder others from their own faction from excelling (kill stealing bastards) would have bounties put on them (game would decide this by using an radius around players, calculating damage done to a hostile by players within this radius, highest damage output gets the credit, if their level is highly discrepant they get considerably less, and if they take the final shot, stealing from a noob who did more damage the noob gets the kill and they get an assist, players above a certain point get no xp and instead get a warning to move on or face getting a bounty (call this "going AWOL").

This would at least help keep players in level-appropriate places, helping with balance.

You raise a good point about faction-switching for farming purposes. So an alternative could be you begin the game with the option to play as each faction until a certain rank, if you wish to continue playing as that faction after that rank you're basically pledging to stick with it for a certain number of levels, at least 20-40. That way even if there are large groups of farming folks they'll be taking their sweet time getting to a point where they can switch sides. As for skill cross-over the idea is that you get that faction skill across factions but only the bonus while you're playing as the one it came from.

The credits idea makes a little sense but I guess if we're talking level-pledging for factions then credit preservation shouldn't be an issue. So a player keeps all their credits across factions, but need to gain I guess a faction ranking to utilize them. They get faction rank increases just by doing stuff for the faction like capturing points of interest. It'd work much the same way as XP but probably progress at a slower rate. Unless you'd already gotten a high level in one faction, then you'd get a small bonus in faction progress in the new one.

That game mechanic sounds great but at the same time I don't think a former storm-trooper now working with the rebels would necessarily hide that, he's joined the "right" side now and wearing his past on his shoulder kinda shows that he knows who he is. It's about letting the player show what they've done and been through. So I stand by the faction-trophies staying when you switch. Because its main purpose isn't a narrative/immersion one so much as a recognition one, and even then it can still make sense within the Star Wars universe. I mean Grievous walked around with Jedi lightsabers on his belt. Was he a Jedi? No. Same reasoning here, there are numerous reasons for a rebel wearing a piece of Stormtrooper gear.

Finally onto the last point: if we're going to think of this like a Planetside-esque game then you're right, players won't be switching sides. Bots make sense. To take it a step further a player exiting the game deliberately would only be able to do so at a drop ship bound for something like a Star Destroyer, a command/invasion vehicle with living quarters etc.

Which is another idea for a mechanic: personal living quarters. Officers would get increasingly swank private housing options, other ranks would be given the ability to customize their bunks to an extent. And merc/Hutt characters would have their own ships, with their own crews (this would appeal to an entirely new audience as well) if they so chose. There would also be the option of setting a homeworld, where you gain buffs in combat and if you perform exceptionally well in defending it you get the right to own land, that'd be mainly a Rebel thing. But there'd be equivalents for Imperials and mercs/hutts. Imperials would be given property options based on their points scored during invasion of a world, mercs/hutts would be given the option to buy property primarily in the outer rim but also in the Coruscant slums based on their reputation for completing jobs and delivering bounties. Player properties would be in different cells to all the action, with a dummy model of each property existing in the battlefield for them to defend for an even bigger bonus if they choose, but otherwise only players and those they invite to their homes would be allowed in, allowing inter-factional interaction.

And I'll stop making walls of text when you do.

BTGBullseye · January 16, 2016

Oh my god another one. O_O

And here comes another. (hopefully a bit shorter this time though)

Right! When I talk about fulfilling certain tasks to unlock shit I don't mean random ones. I mean stuff that makes sense, if you get x headshots you unlock a new scope. Do you see why that makes sense? Headshots require accuracy, scopes are a weapon component that assists with GREATER accuracy. When I say complete a task to upgrade a weapon component I mean stuff like that, basically prove that you have the skill with what you're using to use better versions of it. These are things that would likely unlock without the player even noticing anyway, because what they do to unlock new stuff will match their playstyle, and they'll likely end up buying stuff that suits how they play. But it means if a player wants to improve in a different area they've got a nice development pathway to do it, they can continue to improve a different weapon/skill and as they do they'll be able to tell because the equipment they use will start being and looking better. Sure it's not insanely realistic but it's a good way of pacing progression, so that you don't just farm money. And when I talked about credit farming idling didn't even factor into it. I'll continue with the GTA Online example: In GTA Online some jobs provided a great payoff, eventually this resulted in people farming those jobs over and over and over to buy new gear, but the gear was expensive so they'd basically spend up to 50 hours grinding. In my eyes grinding isn't really a fun way of playing a game, not one about going from place to place and shooting folks for the funzies.

With your example of getting headshots to unlock a scope, what about needing the scope to perform those headshots? Most people need the equipment to perform the feats that are locking the equipment away. Sure, having a feat like that improve the sniping 'skill' would be a good idea, but not locking equipment behind it.

Actually, having feats (like 3 kills in under 10 seconds with sniper type weapons) be the only way to unlock the leveling up of a skill, in addition to just performing repetitive actions of the skill (like headshots for sniping) sounds like a really good idea for the skills.

I just don't feel that equipment obtainment should have ANYTHING to do with anything except money and level. (and several million players of MMOs agree with me every day) Grinding isn't applicable when grinding won't get you more credits faster. (it'll actually make it a lot slower and less interesting)

The issue you're providing is that you think that feats (which unless extremely simple to complete) will prevent grinding, which it won't. What happens when someone comes in and does all the feats really fast, and then has all the gear unlocked before level 10? (or are you going to level lock the feats too?) There is ALWAYS some form of grind somewhere in a progression based game, and that mild grind is what makes the feats interesting. If someone gets bored grinding, they can always go and do feats, but if someone gets bored with feats that they just can't seem to complete, then your system says they can't progress in the game. (everyone should always be able to progress, and not be restricted by artificial restrictions, which is what your version of feats are)

Regarding your next thing about weapon customizability/variety etc: to me variety is the spice of life, having a small number of highly moddable weapons is good, having a large number of highly moddable weapons is better. Base weapons that you can pimp out extensively is great, but for a game in it for the long haul you need to have more tiers of gear. So a large catalog of customizable weapons makes sense. I'm thinking a selection of two to three per weapon type for every 5 levels, and another two per rank (ranks depend on accomplishment, level depends on xp gain). As for the "complete random feats" thing I never said shit about random. I'll re-iterate that you'd unlock new weapon mods and such by doing things that make sense in the context of those weapon mods. So you wouldn't be told to like, kill 10 enemies with one shot from a sniper rifle, because that would be ridiculous and more the sort of thing a shotgun would be good for. The requirements for new weapon mods (not, all but the super awesome ones) would make sense given what the mods are.

I did say dozens of base weapons per level group, and similar numbers of base items, all designed to be modded. So we agree on that.

I think we have some sort of miscommunication on how they unlock in those level groups though. My idea is that they would have a set of one of each different type of weapon (assault-type, SMG-type, melee-type, pistol-type, sniper-type, shotgun-type, etc.) unlocked for character creation, and another set unlocks at each new level group, but having at least one weapon unlock at each level as well. Higher level base weapons are better overall, but cost more than modding your lower level base weapons to get to the same performance. The lower level base weapons also have a lower maximum modded performance than the higher level base weapons maximum modded performance, which allows for someone to have a huge item performance overlap where they can upgrade at any time. (maybe they want to keep their lower level max modded sniper for a while, even though it does about 1/4 the overall performance of the new one, because it has the semi-auto upgrade and they haven't bought it yet for their next tier weapon)

I hope this is getting the idea across... If not, let me know.

As for class loadouts I don't recall saying anything about limiting them to only class-specific weapons, they'd be able to use whatever they want, but obviously they'd be building their loadout based on their role and what they do. Once again on the subject of feats-for-gear it's about pacing. If you give them a lump credit reward to use on anything based on a specific task it changes the pacing and makes it more credit centric again, which just doesn't do well for a game's longevity. Given the number of tiers of gear and the number of levels etc that would be available, limiting purchase by making sure the player is actually proficient will pace players and make them prioritize what they want to get, and as a result will shape their character in a more distinct way than if you give them the full run of the arsenal. You also mentioned something about "repeating feats for every character", not sure what you're on about there. You'd be playing as one player avatar (unless you're mad and make more), that player avatar would be able to save a number of loadouts for use in different matches if they feel like doing something different, this loadout could be changed while waiting to respawn but obviously not just out in the field (unless you're at a command post). So the players would only do the task once per character, but that one character would be able to go far. A potential way to have the best of both worlds on the feats-credits issue would be to simply have the feats as pre-requisites for skill level-ups, and have skill requirements on gear. What these skills govern would be shown pretty clearly while customizing weapons by colour-coding each and matching its colour to the component it effects (yellow for accuracy, red for fire rate, orange for damage as an example).

The problem with your method of pacing is, it's artificial. Pacing should be natural, and based on the player's skill, not a game mechanic.

Also, over 90% of MMO players use more than 1 character when playing, usually 1 for each faction. This would be reduced by having the ability to change factions, but there will still be many people who will design their characters for a roleplay and will not want to have them change factions. This is why almost all MMOs allow for multiple characters to be made. It's not just about the gameplay itself. If it was, we would be using untextured polygons shooting things at each other, not people yelling in chat "FOR THE HORDE!!!" all the time. Role play is much of the game nowadays, and Star Wars is one of the better universes in which to do that role play, but limiting their role play to a tertiary thing on only one character each is going to push away most of the people that would want to play this. (or they'll be forced to make multiple accounts just to do their roleplay, which happens A LOT in games that don't allow multiple characters)

I agree with your credit-y thing, I probably just misinterpreted what it was when I read it initially.

Miscommunication happens a lot when trying to describe an idea to someone else... There's even an XKCD about it. (https://xkcd.com/1028/) It's the bane of our existence as humans, and probably what 99% of this discussion is actually dealing with.

As for skills that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking. But there'd be a wide variety to cater to niches, which would also help players settle into a role better, instead of everyone hopping around mad doing the same thing, which doesn't garner teamwork in the slightest, a poor trait for any game where you pit teams against each other to achieve goals. It wouldn't be as rigid as a MOBA or something, but it would be a little more rigid than something like Halo. The idea is for a player to play the way they want, and gradually end up carrying out whatever role conforms to that, which is where the spec-ops tier of gameplay would begin to shine.

Agreed. Endgame is also where your faction choice plays a major role.

A lot of games cater entirely to endgame players, and some entirely to pre-endgame, but a good game plays well for both, and allows endgame players to leave the endgame if they want. That's where my idea of faction switching shines, leaving the endgame without losing everything, and they can always switch back if they want to play through their faction again. (or just have the option of switching to their own faction in the list, it would be equivalent to putting in a "New Game +" feature)

Regarding team-sizing and mentoring: The way this would work if we're assuming a single massive galaxy where you actually physically fly from one battlefield to the next (which would be damn cool if you got it working), is the game would analyze locations where there are lots of low level players, and offer singular high level players the option to help out, based on how they help out (using the previously mentioned stats) the game would decide to offer them another position or throw them from the mentoring pool. These offers would be something the player could turn off however, and when initially given the option they'd be given a "yes" "no" and "never" choice of decisions, in case they don't care for the mechanic at all. This system would also be the overall way of balancing the levels of players and where they're located. You'd have the game give you a series of locations where your assistance is warranted, if the player goes to these places to play they get bonus xp, credits and skill progression, and possibly a chance at a rare-ish shiny item. Players that get to a high level and constantly farm the noobs or hinder others from their own faction from excelling (kill stealing bastards) would have bounties put on them (game would decide this by using an radius around players, calculating damage done to a hostile by players within this radius, highest damage output gets the credit, if their level is highly discrepant they get considerably less, and if they take the final shot, stealing from a noob who did more damage the noob gets the kill and they get an assist, players above a certain point get no xp and instead get a warning to move on or face getting a bounty (call this "going AWOL").
This would at least help keep players in level-appropriate places, helping with balance.

That sounds pretty good, but I would also add that it is only allowed to go back a single level group when helping out lower-levels. This would reduce the issues of a top-level sniper playing with level 3 players who couldn't even begin to stand a chance without swarming the top-level player.

For that level relation kill XP, only having that for the 'mentoring' system would be good, but the regular players should keep the fixed reward system.

You raise a good point about faction-switching for farming purposes. So an alternative could be you begin the game with the option to play as each faction until a certain rank, if you wish to continue playing as that faction after that rank you're basically pledging to stick with it for a certain number of levels, at least 20-40. That way even if there are large groups of farming folks they'll be taking their sweet time getting to a point where they can switch sides. As for skill cross-over the idea is that you get that faction skill across factions but only the bonus while you're playing as the one it came from.
The credits idea makes a little sense but I guess if we're talking level-pledging for factions then credit preservation shouldn't be an issue. So a player keeps all their credits across factions, but need to gain I guess a faction ranking to utilize them. They get faction rank increases just by doing stuff for the faction like capturing points of interest. It'd work much the same way as XP but probably progress at a slower rate. Unless you'd already gotten a high level in one faction, then you'd get a small bonus in faction progress in the new one.

That sounds really complicated, and not very fun... Simplify. I made it very simple with multiple characters, (like most MMOs) and the faction switching capability.

That game mechanic sounds great but at the same time I don't think a former storm-trooper now working with the rebels would necessarily hide that, he's joined the "right" side now and wearing his past on his shoulder kinda shows that he knows who he is. It's about letting the player show what they've done and been through. So I stand by the faction-trophies staying when you switch. Because its main purpose isn't a narrative/immersion one so much as a recognition one, and even then it can still make sense within the Star Wars universe. I mean Grievous walked around with Jedi lightsabers on his belt. Was he a Jedi? No. Same reasoning here, there are numerous reasons for a rebel wearing a piece of Stormtrooper gear.

Still, the player isn't going to be portrayed as the 'saviour of the faction' character, he's going to be a regular guy. Just look at the regular guys in the Star Wars universe, they don't advertise they were once X or Y or Z faction, they just try to not have a bounty on their heads while doing what they do.

That said, I'm not entirely against the idea of MINOR cosmetic unlocks for switching factions after a certain level is reached in both factions. (nothing fancy/flashy, just extremely minor that probly won't be noticed in-combat)

Finally onto the last point: if we're going to think of this like a Planetside-esque game then you're right, players won't be switching sides. Bots make sense. To take it a step further a player exiting the game deliberately would only be able to do so at a drop ship bound for something like a Star Destroyer, a command/invasion vehicle with living quarters etc.

That would only be if they don't lose connection, and want to get the match win/loss rewards. Agreed. It would also have to be relatively easy and fast to get to, because a 'quick' quit capability is necessary. (parents kicking their kids off the computer because they didn't do their homework, data limits being reached on metered internet connections, etc.)

Which is another idea for a mechanic: personal living quarters. Officers would get increasingly swank private housing options, other ranks would be given the ability to customize their bunks to an extent. And merc/Hutt characters would have their own ships, with their own crews (this would appeal to an entirely new audience as well) if they so chose. There would also be the option of setting a homeworld, where you gain buffs in combat and if you perform exceptionally well in defending it you get the right to own land, that'd be mainly a Rebel thing. But there'd be equivalents for Imperials and mercs/hutts. Imperials would be given property options based on their points scored during invasion of a world, mercs/hutts would be given the option to buy property primarily in the outer rim but also in the Coruscant slums based on their reputation for completing jobs and delivering bounties. Player properties would be in different cells to all the action, with a dummy model of each property existing in the battlefield for them to defend for an even bigger bonus if they choose, but otherwise only players and those they invite to their homes would be allowed in, allowing inter-factional interaction.

That's kinda what I was thinking of as a part of the 'clan' system. If you're in a clan, your clan gets the ship/station/whatever, but your rank in that faction entitles you to the different accommodations. The interiors of the accommodations improve based on level and achievements, and is customizable. Invites to your faction station/ship/whatever is possible cross-faction. Access to abodes is available to anyone on your faction map, but the doors to those abodes are locked unless the owner is both on that map and has unlocked the door, and the doors can only be unlocked by the owner.

And I'll stop making walls of text when you do.

Unfortunately, I think we both care about this too much to stop. :lol:

Asrien · January 16, 2016

Lol "hopefully a bit shorter" didn't really work.

Okay point one: Obviously you'd have a sight or scope available to begin with, just because I"m not mentioning that you get things from each category at the start doesn't mean you don't, I'm actually surprised you keep assuming the opposite to be the case. Regardless in the event of feats-for-skill-up you wouldn't need the feats for item unlocks, it'd be for one thing or the other.

As for completing feats really fast that wouldn't be a problem if you make feat requirements increasingly difficult. You go from say, killing 3 enemies in 5 seconds with a sniper rifle to killing 10 enemies in 12 seconds with one. That's not something people will be able to do easily, and it's designed to be difficult. Obviously that example is insane, but yeah feats get harder as you complete more of them. They'd also be repeatable to some extent, and there'd be special feats as part of daily, weekly and monthly objectives that grant progress to something (credit bonus, xp bonus or something like that).

My idea was to just have a blanket unlock of certain weapons every level milestone (every 5 levels or so), so x weps of each type become buy-able, likely 3 of each, maybe just 3 in total though based on your weapon types used, I don't know.

As for weapon mods each tier would have a maximum limit of mods that are unlocked while using it, these mods have a maximum potential close to the starting stats of the weapons the tier above. But you will be able to use weapons from higher tier weapons on lower tier ones. So like, if you fully work an E11 Blaster Rifle and then move on to using an F11 Blaster Rifle, you can use F11 mods on the E11. This would require the "quartermaster" skill, which gets progress every time you get a new gun, "improve" a loadout (up the cumulative stats of that loadout by switching weapons etc) or unlock a new weapon tier. The lore-reason for it working would be that a high level quartermaster will be able to rework the weapon mods and jury rig compatibility for older models.

The problem with player-controlled pacing in an MMO is that players have different levels of skill, and those who have a massive natural proficiency for the game will just rush through it and quit, that's not good in the long run. Artificial pacing keeps people around. It prevents the sort of problems that come from Destiny, limited content and not overly difficult levelling. By artificially pacing people you limit the progress they make based on what they do. And as I've already said making the game entirely about getting more credits is horrible when you want it to last for any period of time. "Artificially" pacing the game gives players more to do, more reason to stick around, and also helps them feel more invested in their character. It becomes "I earned everything I'm using and it was a real bitch, but so satisfying" instead of "It took me x hours to make y credits to get this gear.", my kind of pacing adds more specificity to what the players do, which in turn makes them consider more what they invest their time doing. They will absolutely be able to get everything in time, the main thing I want is for it to take a LONG time for that to happen, making it all credit-focused is the sort of thing that will limit playtime, and limit improvement of the player. It'll absolutely be possible for players to go at their own pace with this method, it just won't revolve entirely around making credits.

I'm aware of the propensity for faction changes but when I suggested making it easy you were like "but then there's no permanence to the factions! Cats and dogs living in harmony! ". Regarding multiple characters: players can do multiple characters, but there will be a LOT of progression and skill stuff to deal with. Feat progress will to an extent be shared, there will be an "account-wide" section for skills that're buffed by feats. This way players who want each character to govern a different play-style will be catered toward, and if eventually they might decide to make a new master character, who will be learned in all playstyles. Good way of using that potential is to have a stage past the spec-ops tier that enables players to become Jedi or Sith (or Elite Bounty Hunters/Rogues), this would be something a new character would be created for, and would be introduce entirely different skills and interplay. Obviously blaster-centric players would keep skills from before but Jedi and Sith players would be starting from scratch, still able to use normal weapons but the selling point would be the ability to use the force, which is what they'd level up; force powers. There'd also be an entirely different progression for them as characters, fulfilling different missions specific to their character. Like go to this planet to get these parts for your saber. Face this foe here etc. These players would be in a separate instance of the galaxy exclusive to people on their level, and it would be made for the hardcore players.

The rationale for having the Masters mode is that a lot of players will be wanting to play something somewhat casual that just has a lot of juicy content. They play as basic characters, get to what they think is the end-game (spec-ops), get satisfying experiences out of it, and then when they reach the Spec-Ops level cap they may think "wow I've finished it", then bam you hit them with Masters, the actual end-game, they get the opportunity to play as someone truly powerful, who they will build up to BE powerful, and face other people who've progressed to the same point. The way this would integrate with pre-Masters tiers like Spec-Ops and I guess we'll call it Infantry, is they'd be able to take their Masters character to those points, but they'd be discouraged from using their Masters-level skills. This would hopefully discourage griefers to an extent, moreso than simply putting this content behind an expected 100-200 hours of playtime. Masters in lower tiers wouldn't get xp for kills or anything like that, and if they killed tons and tons of players in low tier then the bounty system would be in place even more against them. HUGE bounties would be issued to Masters who went on sprees, which in turn would create some truly epic battles.

The actual end-game event would be a hidden planet, which access to would only be given to people over a certain level, and it would basically be a huge fight between players for domination of the world, which would come with buffs. The way this isn't just lame and annoying because it's too similar to basic gameplay, is that prior to this Masters is about personal development. You have what is basically a single player campaign after the multiplayer one, that is set narratively after all the war you were just fighting in, whatever the state of the galaxy when you start Masters, that is the state of it for this story. So you'll still encounter hostiles, only now they'll largely be strong NPCs (since obviously lower tier players won't be a huge challenge), the focus will be on a player-focused story, and it will end with a return to multiplayer combat against others who've just gone through their own version of what you have.

That was a bit of a tangent.. Onto your "fuck cosmetics get generics" point (paraphrasing): the whole "saviour of the faction" idea only works if you're the only one getting it. All players would get the ability to pimp out their character cosmetically in different ways. They'd be recognizable as members of their particular faction, but personalization is always a big part of games these days, and they'd still be generic, but there'd be small touches they can make. When they get to Spec-Ops those touches would include armor paint-jobs, different shaders that modify the shininess and such, and decals (for imperials and bountymerchutters), Rebels and Slavers would get their own different cosmetic pimpiness like different clothing materials, a selection of fashionable hats and stuff like that. Cosmetics would be there for players to feel different, but it wouldn't go off the hook. They'd still look like an army, just with a little of themselves thrown in. If you'd played Renegade or Elite Squadron you'd get what I'm talking about, it'd basically be that but with less paint-job changing for Infantry.

Clan system would be excellent but as an addition as well as personal digs. You would only be able to have one base of ops though, so if you joined a clan you'd be able to choose to set up your stuff there, or wherever you were before. Eventually there might be the ability to have multiple abodes but certainly at the start there wouldn't be.

Oh look another god-awful long post.

BTGBullseye · January 16, 2016

Well, the majority of the differences we're having appear to be based on opposing views of what holds a player's attention longer... You feel it to be more attention holding to have artificial restrictions on gameplay, and progression similar to typical non-MMO FPS games, whereas I feel there should be no restrictions and should have more MMO aspects than you.

Many of your ideas are really good, but I just don't feel that your underlying game design will hold the attention of millions of active players for more than a few months. I also think you're designing it mainly to be a game you're wanting to play right now instead of a game that will grab and hold as many people as possible for as long as possible.

Asrien · January 17, 2016

I don't want a game that will hold squillions of people for squillions of hours, as I said I want a Battlefront game. All the MMO ideas were coming from you. So there's certainly a massive difference in what we want. Also there'd be room for growth within the game, that's generally what keeps people engaged. Expansions etc.

Sign In

What I Think A Battlefront Game Should Actually Be

Do you think this would be good or bad? 3 members have voted

1. Do you think this would be good or bad?

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Who's Online 1 Member, 1 Anonymous, 60 Guests (See full list)

Do you think this would be good or bad?
3 members have voted