BTGBullseye

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.

And here comes another. (hopefully a bit shorter this time though) 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) 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. 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) 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. 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) 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. 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. 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) 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.) 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. Unfortunately, I think we both care about this too much to stop.

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

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

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/

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

Grats!

Water.

+1

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. 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) 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) 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. 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?) 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.

So that would mean Gamergate would be much smaller. As you need people to start it in the first place. Some people already consider Gamergate to guilty and/or stupid so how would not responding make things worse? I still think not giving Anti-Gamergate their narrative would have been a huge advantage for Gamergate. But not responding doesn't remove the anti-GG propaganda, it merely leaves it without any opposing viewpoints.

I can tell you right now, 3D is definitely the future. Even the VirtualBoy (the one a lot of people claimed gave them headaches) was amazing, even if it was only low-rez red wireframe graphics. These headsets are like strapping a pair of 1080p monitors to your face, and adding headtracking. (in short, totally awesome)

Looks like the traditional first step towards a dictatorship.

How is that a downside? It makes you look like aren't receptive and there for your opposition isn't given anything to work off of. If Gamergate just refused to speak to Anti-Gamergate they would have been condemned all the same. But one key point is that it would've weakened Anti-Gamergate's narrative against Gamergate. And that would've caused them to be completely ignored by everyone as well. Not responding in modern culture is either an admission of guilt, or stupidity. (despite logic saying otherwise)

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)

The 4 dialog options issue might not be an issue at all once the GECK is out... Also, if you need a voice actor, I can do some vocalizations. (don't know how good they'll be, but I can at least make it sound like I'm conversing with someone instead reciting lines from a script in monotone)

Planetside 2. Made an NC outfit on the US East server (the one Ross is planning on using for the meetup) called "Accursed Farms East".