Recipe for popularity
Posted 08 March 2014 - 11:56 AM
Just wanted to share my thoughts on what makes these type of games get longevity and popularity.
I think in a way subconsciously many players still want to be storming beaches from the experience of watching saving private Ryan. Time and time again in darkest hour mod for red orchestra players would vote for Omaha beach and dog green. Now in rising storm for red orchestra 2 it is Iwo Jima. Played over and over and over.
Also this points out that the community doesn't want balance but realism and teaming up together to take tough defenses.
Also rising storm is more popular than red orchestra 2 with Germans vs Russians. Again maybe a throw back to saving private Ryan, the pacific etc.. And an emotional connection to the American side.
Hopefully players will embrace the Brits but these attacking tough defenses I have seen are extremely popular.
Posted 08 March 2014 - 12:05 PM
However, I'd definitely agree on Rising Storm and Iwo Jima, way too many people want to play this map over and over again (even in the RS Beta back then), so yes, these kind of 'tough defenses' are appreciated by the (casual) player base.
But unfortunately I still don't really get your point here regarding FE, they already 'confirmed' that they'll introduce beach assault map(s) (see the Juno art).
Introducing beach maps alone will not make this game popular *and* good.
Honestly, I don't wanna see too many of those 'beach assault' maps, a remake of DH's 'Juno' would be appreciated though :thumb:
Posted 08 March 2014 - 01:42 PM
Rising Storm's and DH's map layouts should be taken as good examples.
Posted 08 March 2014 - 04:54 PM
Now, what would make Attack/Defense really cool would be the ability to use more static or hard-to-move defenses and defensive weapons. I would KILL to be able to use a field cannon, because it makes more sense to defend against tanks using AT guns than it is with other tanks, especially when you are using inferior British tanks against German tanks when you could use 6 or 17 pounder guns that are even better at killing tanks when they don't need to move. I did make a questionaire last year asking about Heavy Machine Guns, and Jackboot replied that there would be, so I am curious to see what they do with HMGs. Will it be like RO2 where the HMGs are static in rather boring positions, or will they step it up and allow troops to move HMGs wherever they are needed.
What would also be cool would be to have some form of sapper class that you can use to lay barbed wire and sandbags (not tank traps though because they take a considerable amount of time to set up, and would hinder some fun for the enemy team). To be able to lay a line down and start building. As an individual soldier, it would take maybe 3 minutes to set up a small wall of sandbags (this is not Company of Heroes where they magically carry 1 tonne of sand bags on their backs), but the wall will build faster when teammates help build, and anybody can help build. Barbed Wire, however, should not be too difficult to lay down, maybe 1 minute for a considerable line of barbed wire. Maybe planting mines (both AI and AT mines) would be cool (games already let you do this).
Attack/Defense is already a more realistic and very fun approach to more serious gamers. We just need to accept the fact that this game, due to its realism, will not attract many casual players. All people need to do is not be like Activision or DICE, and add more to the game mode. Player-built defenses, field cannons, portable HMGs, mines, wire cutters/explosives to clear defenses, etc.
Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:18 PM
There should be a choice on a map for which leader they want to spawn to = that way some novice players are not stuck to just one officer with forces A with an extremely difficult task of advancing a heavy enemy strong point and could choose easier task to fill. For example spawn on the other officer who leads forces B who are simultaneously assisting the advancing force by giving a covering fire.
It's the new innovative ideas that bring attraction to the game while staying true to the realism. New gameplays that provide possibilities of advancing together with a squad and mutually exploring the terrain ahead or sending troops on various mini-missions like patrols, reconnaissance, ambushes and so on. This can be only possible with good game mechanics and tools that allow for orders and commands to be easily conveyed and noticed by the players instantly.
Posted 13 March 2014 - 10:19 PM
These heavily defended maps like omaha in computer games often are deemed to be the ultimate excitement provider. Then after a while it quickly drains players from the same old run, die and respawn repeat-routine. A senseless running into death that turns players into a stark boredom.
Personally, I agree with you - if I log into DH and see Omaha/Dog Green/Berlin being played I log straight out again. But people keep voting for these maps, so if we're talking popularity, then maybe these are the sort of maps we need. Maybe their simplicity, in terms of goals and the limited way of achieving them is what appeals to a lot of players.
I play combat flightsims and wargames. On the forums for both those game-types there is a constant clamour for more realism and more complexity and yet the games that get played the most in these genres are the more simple, straight-to -the-action types.
I would never advocate designing FE so that it is simple and easy to play, but I'm afraid that the game I'm hoping it will be will not be all that popular.
Posted 15 March 2014 - 05:03 AM
I played a M&B sub-mod a week or so ago and there was a map where it was quite large, but there was a small village on top of a hill that was filled with broken walls and shell craters (this was for WWI) and it allowed units to have crazy and intense close quarters combat where each side spawned about 150m out with trenches on both sides leading towards the objective, but a few parts where it was necessary to be exposed in order to move forward. People were absolutely digging this, but I don't. I would either set up on the hill next to the village and lob mortars into it or take objectives on the flanks with a few men working together. If maps had that sort of local variety, I'd be happy. Not every map can be a meat-grinder or a recon map. However it'd be great if we had those. Variety is the spice of life.
Posted 27 March 2014 - 02:37 PM
RO2 is dead, long live Festung Europa.
Posted 27 March 2014 - 08:34 PM
Posted 09 October 2015 - 04:15 PM
I too appreciate Kahash's comments.
Naturally we'll offer as diverse a set of maps in the initial release as time allows. However, sophisticated new feature sets may force us to take longer to integrate them properly into maps.
This will also put the community mapper in the position of going beyond his ability to create a basic map and, instead, create one that cleverly exploits the new major features.
The good thing is: There is room for maps of all types from the short and simple to the highly dynamic and somewhat complex. These "super maps" will require more time to build, more cooperation between the Devs and community mappers and REAL leadership and teamwork from the players. The side that wins will likely be the side that function as a well led team.
I predict that certain players will become known for having these skills and will be highly sought after on the maps that offer complexity. HOWEVER, not every map we create will be demanding in this way. We appreciate that some of the best and most popular maps ever were pretty straightforward.
Wilsonam wrote: But, as someone said - perhaps just a touch too anal for a game
WUK: What! Thats impossible! Blasphemie!
Posted 09 October 2015 - 09:10 PM
- One idea that just popped into my head is that, if bots work well, we could have beachhead maps where, before the round, the players vote to attack or defend, and then all of them end up on one team, facing an opposing army of bots. The objectives are really straight forward, so wouldn't require sophisticated AI.
- With UE's ability to stream in content as needed, battles can be fought across maps that are won or lost miles away from where they started, without requiring the entire map to be loaded at once. In theory, a single battle can start on the beaches of Normandy, and end with the capture of Berlin. As it is fought, based on what happens, it can swing north through Belgium, or south through Paris, changing every single time. As well, based on scripts and outcomes, things like available assets will alter. (For example, if the Germans need a particular bridge intact to have tank reinforcements for a given battle, whether or not the Allies manage to destroy it in time will drastically change how the battle gets fought.)
- Maps can be subtly altered each time they are played. One might have a village that hasn't been touched, while the next time, it is in the process of being shelled and burning to the ground, while the next time, it is full of burnt-out shells in the middle of winter. The base map is the same, but specific selections of changes have been chosen to completely change how it is fought in. Visibility during Spring/Summer will be much lower than during Fall/Winter, simply because of trees/bushes/etc. having leaves. In short, small changes meaning drastically extended replayability.
Posted 09 October 2015 - 10:45 PM
What made me dislike RO2 that all the design of maps are so confined and the general gameplay is cunningly and deliberately obstructed and obscured with all kinds of vision thus preventing to have any sensible firefight on the long distance like it was in real life. It's causing the game what it is, just senseless running right into the enemy and aim before they aim you counter strike style. I hope for FE to avoid that blunder. The maps should be well open with a lot of space and leeway for maneuvering on the battlefield with your squad (so that it doesn't get into an unorganised chaos like in RO2).
I'm thinking of more like having maps where the first objective is say a house or a hill 500m away, and this is where there is no easy way out skipping around by just simply driving a vehicle to it with a full squad packed on it.
If you want to risk losing a whole squad packed into a vehicle and try to just simply drive to it you'll most likely end up a toast by some lurking enemy AT gun hiding in the bushes.
Bear in mind that losing every vehicle and every man counts towards the entire team's pool reinforcements and as well as having an effect on the ends result.
I want in FE that real sense of progressiveness of gaining the ground inch by inch and where you have to work hard for to gain (but not necessarily occupied by enemy like it's always in DH, but more sort of a point where it's on the way to the actual objective), where your team is slowly worming through the terrain. Not just driving into an objective where you find completely no enemy and snatching it by having it forfeited.
There should be no place for quick and easy seizing of objectives in FE. But rather it should be cumbersome and progressive, by slowly building up forward spawn points.
So like on the screenshot below, that house in the far back would be already preoccupied by the enemy MGs and firing down on your team as you try to advance.
Sadly there hasn't been a system where it enables to advance forward gaining closer spawns as you move closer to the objective. As in DH is mostly about running about 1-2 minute from the spawn until you see the enemy. But I was hoping with the new UE4 engine things like advancing over a longer distance terrain would be possible to devise.
As there must be a some sort of system where not just simply gaining a forward territory gains you a forward spawn but also a number of killed enemies also should count toward gaining a forward spawn thus enabling to advance to that objective that is 500m far away much easier (otherwise it'd be too dificult to die and spawn so far away).
This is where moveable spawn system in FE are necessary to be implemented.
Posted 09 October 2015 - 10:57 PM
Hmmm... Perhaps each spawn point has a limited pool of reinforcements to drawn from, that can 'dry up', forcing players to spawn from somewhere else? I would also have a cap per player, so that those who tend to run in and die quickly aren't using up all of the respawns of those who stay alive longer. If a particular spawn point becomes too 'hot' to spawn from, the remaining 'reinforcements' from there can 'retreat' to a farther one and increase its numbers. Conversely, spawn point reinforcements can 'shift forward' when the line moves up.
Posted 15 October 2015 - 12:19 PM
That's exactly what I'm thinking. You can't have in FE the same thing which is in DH, the non-stop innumerable spawning of players without the consequence of their death toll. That constant inconsequential running straight into a capzone and not worrying if you'll get gunned down by an MG (because since the death toll doesn't affect the spawn placement at all, players know they can just respawn and risk running again to it) was just way over the top.
The spawn points should really be shifting in the sense of the word, not like in DH with huge leaps from one spawn to another (that's the top cause for battles getting stuck at an objective and getting into a stalemate).
And I really start to believe that the spawn points shifting forward could actually be accounted to the death toll inflicted on both teams rather than capping objectives. The capping of objectives imo should only have an importance towards the end result of the battle (could also activate more troops/tanks etc after an objective is achieved just like you receive a king tiger on stoumont map after capping the church) The more objectives you cap the higher title the team has won (but the casaulties also should count in the end battle result as well).
Say your team in the last minute has impacted more casualties on the enemy than they have on your team then the spawn point would move accordingly and that's how the battle would constantly be in the "progressive" state rather than constantly "stuck" with the spawn always in the same place like in DH (that is until the objective is actually capped).
I really think FE spawn system should be way more advanced ahead than the "stuck" in-one-place-spawn system that was in DH where it switches after an objective is capped with one big sudden leap from one to another and constant human waves being thrown at it. So that we don't get to read comments in FE like in the screenshot below.
- 'DeadlyDad' Olson likes this
Posted 15 October 2015 - 06:22 PM
- In many maps, the spawn is often so far away from the action that you run out of stamina before you even get there, especially if you go through one door immediately before the next one opens. Conversely, it can be so close that you get killed before you can get your bearings. That is why the MDV's were invented; to allow each team to decide where they wanted to spawn.
- Before I forget, pleasepleasepleasepleasePLEASE change the spawns so that weapons are disabled and there is no collision between players. I've lost track of how many times people have been deliberately tk'ed in spawn, and I've even seen guys blocking spawn exits so that nobody can get by them without tk'ing them. It's ridiculous.
- Please put a letter/number beside each spawn choice, and let players just hit that key. (When choosing to use letters or numbers, remember that players should be able to choose without shifting either hand.) Better still, do that for all multiple choice situations, like choosing roles and equipment for that role. For example, I might be able to spawn at the third spawn point a rifleman with the G43 within a second of getting to the role screen by hitting 'D1B<ENTER>3<ENTER>', where 'D' is rifleman, '1' is main weapon, and 'B' is the second choice of main weapon.
- IRL, reinforcements come from a particular direction, and arrive on-scene via a particular avenue. If the enemy has made that too risky, those reinforcements will have to take another route, and thus delay their arrival. Conversely, if that avenue was blocked, and the enemy has been pushed far enough back, extra reinforcements will be immediately available. This can be simulated in-game.
Posted 31 December 2015 - 07:59 PM
It has been a while since I responded to this thread so, this is a sort of update even though my thinking has not changed a great deal from past messages.
The subject material of the Battle of France is so wide ranging, we have almost unlimited scope. So, the first challenge is picking an overall theme. This has been done.
No matter what type of map is contained within the game expect the maximum of realism (at every level) that we can produce in the production time frame.
This, in my mind, is the great unifying characteristic of planned Official maps. Beyond that, we respect all the successful map types of the past and that runs from small infantry only to spacious tank maps. From maps that can be won in 15-20 minutes to those that may stretch out for an hour or two.
However, expect a dramatically more versatile and immersive type of game play. So, even familiar map types will "Feel" very much different as you fight them.
Also expect us to try a couple of map types that have conduct of operations and objectives that have not been seen before.
The "Wild Card" is as it always has been... Community Maps (C-Maps).
There is more that one person that thinks very independently created C-Maps were the finest ever seen in DH. But, there are also C-Maps that were, simply put, ridiculous.
So, a challenge we face is enthusiastically encouraging C-Maps while, at the same time, dealing with the negative effects of "Stinkers".
By the time FE is released we will have come up with a plan for maximizing the good and minimizing the bad.
In closing, expect to see as wide a variety of maps as we can produce in the initial release with more to follow from JBG and talented Community Mappers..
Wilsonam wrote: But, as someone said - perhaps just a touch too anal for a game
WUK: What! Thats impossible! Blasphemie!
Posted 01 January 2016 - 09:21 AM
Frankly I just hope that someone will be running anything other than the super fast-paced super-close quarters infantry maps a month after release. Or the Trench warfare type maps masquerading as open areas either. I just can't get into RO2 the same way I could get into DH. Too much camping, bottlenecking, repetitive dying and turning corners in friendly held buildings to find some guy with twitch reflexes and a STG44 blasting you in the face. And way, way too much pure chaos and insanity.
I like a game where I can move without being constantly ambushed, where I can predict the rough direction the fire will be coming from and plan my moves accordingly, where I can actually see my targets without them being obscured by obnoxious levels of bloom and post-processing. I'm sure I'm not alone.
- kuopassa and ccmm7 like this
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users