Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. That article stated that the development team behind Nostalrius were operating at a loss, and registration for their server was free. So they certainly weren't in it for commercial gain, they may have been accepting donations for server maintenance though. Either way I don't think they were shut down for money reasons so much as Blizzard's legal team just not liking Blizzard IP being used without them gaining from it. Though I do believe that if they aren't offering an alternative to it that it has a right to be. It's like shutting a museum because you've got work featured in it that you're not making money off.
  2. This seems of interest to the almighty Ross in the sky, given the similarity between a server allowing us to glimpse at the glory days of a definitive MMO, and the death of a non-MMO game. It's quite depressing to me. I never even played WoW but the idea that people who did, and loved it so much that they tried to curate and sustain the old, classic world are being hindered is pretty horrible. Hopefully Blizzard can be convinced that when it comes to something like this it's not all about the money. From what this article says and shows this server's been more about capturing the original feeling of WoW, and absolutely not about profiteering off of Blizzard's IP. They should at the very least leave it be, if not support it as a celebration of their legacy, and their history. http://www.pcgamer.com/inside-the-server-blizzard-wants-to-shut-down/?utm_content=bufferd9162&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_pcgamer
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. I don't know about that. Europe's a pretty "national governments are puppets of a larger body" sort of continent with the exception of Russia so if Poland really go anywhere towards a dictatorship they'll probably be met with more resistance from the continent than they've had.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Title says it all! Apparently there's protesting going on in Poland after the government did something many see as untoward and/or wrong. Anyone with any insight or thoughts?
  12. I've been meaning to give it a go but a friend of mine played it for a few years and he thinks it's basically a pay-to-win game now.
  13. 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).
  14. Admiral Swaggensbury! http://steamcommunity.com/id/bacon_sandwiches/
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.