BTGBullseye

A question on handguns:

 

Which is better, a Beretta or a Glock?

That depends on which firearm from those manufacturers you're comparing, and what your intended application for the weapon is.

This question as it is currently worded is equivalent to asking "which is better, male or female".

Planetside 2. Getting better and better... Once I got used to it, and put mods on it, (4x scope, foregrip, HV ammo, compensator) the Warden became my go-to weapon for Heavy Assault. Basically turns me into a counter-sniper that can take a couple headshots before dying. (barring of course the maxed out level 3000+ characters and their 1-shot kill sniper weapons, sometimes)

If we are going with Ross's statement about players who are familiar with FPS then we should continue with NC. I would not have made a character for NC otherwise.

And yet you blow up my Sunderer with a tank while you're playing TR, traitor!

I almost got you back, had air support and everything, but you ran before I could refill my ammo.

So... from the underlined, I take it they saw a larger chance of getting what they wanted from allying with the insurgents, so they advertised and funded the insurgency. I never said their fight isn't a righteous one against the human rights violations of the TR, I am just saying they are in fact, corporatists, even if the common soldier doesn't realize where the money comes from.

So, just because they are corporate, regardless of any of the ideals or anything else, it automatically makes them worse than an oppressive dictatorial government that massacres its own citizens? You did say the TR was less assholish, I dare you to prove it!

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.

Yeah, NC is closest to normal shooters... Besides, the backstory for them is the least assholish IMO.

What? The TR has the least assholish backstory. the NC are Corporatists who claim to be revolutionaries. At least the Terran Republic isn't just straight up corporatism like the NC, or Tech obsessed like the Vanu.

The TR are a flat out dictatorship... That means you do what the government says or you die. I have yet to see anything say that the NC is a 'corporate nightmare' faction, apart from conjecture from players that don't like the NC.

http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/New_Conglomerate

http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/TR

http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/Vanu_Sovereignty

Personally my vote is for TR. They have some of the best "spray and pray" guns, which are perfect for new players.

 

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2/index.php?threads/so-the-tr-are-now-the-most-talented-and-coordinated-faction-right.235603/

 

Personally I have witnessed this myself, and had trouble when I switched to NC to find both firearms I preferred as well as proper buffs for squad and platoon.

You should look at post #4 in your link... It has a very accurate description of what is really going on. Granted, you may prefer weapons that have absurd fire rates and magazine capacities, but it's not closer to the typical shooters most people are coming from.

That said, glad to have at least 1 experienced player from recent times. (I stopped playing shortly before it left beta because of computer and internet restrictions)

Yeah, NC is closest to normal shooters... Besides, the backstory for them is the least assholish IMO.

If I ever get a VR setup I'll buy a treadmill and go jogging. IN SKYRIM.

Sounds like fun... Now I want to go do that... Fallout 4 too.

I think he was referring to the government trying to control the media.

That is exactly what I was intending... How anyone could think that protesting government overreach is a step towards a dictatorship is beyond me.

Planetside 2. I'm trying to find a good equilibrium for render scale and still be able to see everything... Currently at 0.75, but that still only leaves me at 20 FPS in a combat environment.

Fallout in Africa would basically be Far Cry 2, except with monsters.

So, just Far Cry 2 then...

Well, at least you're experienced... The best I can do right now is be excellent cannon fodder, and find awesome places to deploy a Sunderer. (I got around 10k XP last night from spawn bonuses alone in a single zone conquer)

I just haven't played many of them post-original, and the original hasn't aged well.

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.

my system is barely capable of running an old school point n' click game, yet alone vanilla Fallout 4.

Post your system specs in the Computer Hardware subforum, and I'll see if I can find a way to improve your system, or at least recommend an upgrade path that won't cost much.

I'll be promoting you shortly, just wanted to see that you were posting on here.

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...

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.

I can send you the Wav if you want.

Don't send WAV, convert to FLAC first. (it will not change the audio in any way)

Urg, I hope the Pascal stuff isn't delayed too badly. As for DirectX 12, I think adoption will be slow. They're linking it to Windows 10, it's the same crap with DirectX 10. DirectX 9 worked for Windows XP and 9x. We had DX9-only games in under a year after release. DirectX 10 required Vista. We didn't have DX10-only games until 3 years later, but things didn't really start abandoning DX9 until 6 years later. Game developers don't like shutting out potential buyers, but that's what happens when it's linked to the OS.

I'm hopeful more devs will move towards OpenGL, and effectively open up their games for use on any platform with minimal porting required.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2891613/meet-vulkan-the-powerful-platform-agnostic-gaming-tech-taking-aim-at-directx-12.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7890/return-of-the-directx-vs-opengl-debates

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/valve-directx-12-does-not-make-a-lot-of-sense-vulkan-does/

Hopefully it's not Tetanus. That stuff's nasty.

Tetanus, AKA lockjaw... Eventually, after crushing all your teeth, it actually breaks your jaw. Fun stuff.

Probly should just be in the Anime thread...

Heading upstairs to get something to eat...

I'm feeling tired and mildly depressed... Nothing significantly different from normal.

I hate life... It can go jump off a clif, or a bridg, or a... DAMNIT LIFE, why are you taking away last letters?!?

I got a Planet of the Apes blu-ray boxset for £6. Includes all 5 original films. £6 is a steal for that.

Grats!

Water.