MAG

[Carl B]

What bothers me is - with 256 people in a match , people are going to be so spread out on the map, that it just might be another map to those people who are far off! How do I get the feel that all the players are in this map I am playing, when half of them are 10 kms away!

No no, on the contrary - that's what's going to make it awesome. I can very well see a situation in which once a squad has completed it's targeted objectives, they are to rendezvous with another squad at a certain larger objective... maybe one side will be on defense, and the other on offense, and both squads will come from different directions. Likewise, if a squad is pinned down elsewhere on the map, it won't be able to join up in order to take part in the second-stage objective.

In my mind, I'm seeing a game where individual squad actions definitely count, and everything in the context of a larger field action/victory.

 

[Skrying]

It's a nice dream you have that people really want but I just don't think you're going to find it. Maybe if the game were very serious in a sense like Operation Flashpoint or ArmA but it's really hard to consider anything till we see more. Just don't expect miracles.

 

[patsu]

There is - a very large following. Patsu you confuse me sometimes, I thought you were all down with the Sony lore and stuff.

No... I am a casual (or may be half-casual) who happens to know a few things. All I heard was at one point, the Socom online crowd was huge. I didn't have time to hop in then.
I also heard that there has been major drop offs since then (What happened ?).

I still don't know the specific details of Socom though.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think that the idea can only really work if there wasn't re-spawning. If each side starts with 128 troops, and they're all you get for the fight, suddenly all the tactics become important. Saving allies is essential, as if meeting objectives. That's why the systems work for real military forces. If a soldier could go on a rampage and then respawn, we wouldn't have structured combat and we'd have the same problems in real combat as in online combat. You can't really enforce discipline in a computer game. So I think finite lives, everyone working together for the greater good, is the best way forward...but it'll never happen.

 

[betan]

For me to most interesting part of the game is the persistent army vibe I'm getting.
Every game lets you rank up, but this will probably the game where ranks mean something besides matchmaking and epenis.
Commanding squads, or armies, ranking up (completing objectives/orders) to be able to do just those should be fun.
And people who don't care about any of those, are in it for the kill can simply do that without ruining the game because I expect squad leaders to have implicit control over squad members (like directly or indirectly carrying/moving spawn points).

 

[obonicus]

I think that the idea can only really work if there wasn't re-spawning. If each side starts with 128 troops, and they're all you get for the fight, suddenly all the tactics become important. Saving allies is essential, as if meeting objectives. That's why the systems work for real military forces. If a soldier could go on a rampage and then respawn, we wouldn't have structured combat and we'd have the same problems in real combat as in online combat. You can't really enforce discipline in a computer game. So I think finite lives, everyone working together for the greater good, is the best way forward...but it'll never happen.

But there are reduced versions of this: Counterstrike (among others) had no respawn, but Battlefield had a limited number of reinforcements. In BF playing recklessly meant you'd waste a good share of your side's reinforcements. In BF there were other, quicker ways to lose reinforcements (losing objectives) so it didn't always work that way.

 

[upnorthsox]

I think that the idea can only really work if there wasn't re-spawning. If each side starts with 128 troops, and they're all you get for the fight, suddenly all the tactics become important. Saving allies is essential, as if meeting objectives. That's why the systems work for real military forces. If a soldier could go on a rampage and then respawn, we wouldn't have structured combat and we'd have the same problems in real combat as in online combat. You can't really enforce discipline in a computer game. So I think finite lives, everyone working together for the greater good, is the best way forward...but it'll never happen.

You risk getting shot in the back, then you're out. It won't stop things completely but it will curb it considerably.

Imho the 256 man map will really shine in tournaments (and practice rounds for them) as center stage for 8on8 and 16on16 feeder rounds.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But there are reduced versions of this: Counterstrike (among others) had no respawn, but Battlefield had a limited number of reinforcements. In BF playing recklessly meant you'd waste a good share of your side's reinforcements. In BF there were other, quicker ways to lose reinforcements (losing objectives) so it didn't always work that way.

That sounds a good idea. how well were these systems received?

 

[Carl B]

Counterstrike was/is the uber-popular team/squad shooter, so very well received. SOCOM itself has/had no-respawn options for games, and I imagine it will be similar here. Some servers will allow it, and some won't. I'm a fan of no-respawn and the tactics it encourages, but in a super-large game that might be too time-intensive for some people.

 

[obonicus]

Counterstrike was/is the uber-popular team/squad shooter, so very well received. SOCOM itself has/had no-respawn options for games, and I imagine it will be similar here. Some servers will allow it, and some won't. I'm a fan of no-respawn and the tactics it encourages, but in a super-large game that might be too time-intensive for some people.

I'm for it if they can also guarantee that matches will end quickly. The big problem ends up being like what'd happen in CS matches, where a single straggler (usually on offense) would run down the clock while everyone else waited out.

As Carl said, CS was incredibly successful, and I believe BF was/is too. The latest, BF:BC also uses a reinforcement system on offense, though not on defense.

 

[Tap In]

...I'm a fan of no-respawn and the tactics it encourages, but in a super-large game that might be too time-intensive for some people.

absolutely.... can you imagine waiting for 255 more people to die? I refuse to even play any shooter that has a lobby where you have to wait to play let alone sit through a no respawn game (epitome of attention deficit american). My game time is limited and waiting to play is wasting my gaming time. that's why I love Ea server games (or CoD4) as you can just log in and start playing immediately and keep playing until objective is complete and then guess what... a new game auto-starts.

yea, there will have to be respawns of some sort or simple victory conditions for it to work IMO

I imagine as some have speculated, some sort of breaking up of the maps and or objectives into smaller segments that would allow for various skirmishes with squads to be happening perhaps even with their own victory conditions which could then tie into the larger team as a whole?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You could get around the 'Doing Nothing When Dead' problem by starting on a different server. If you die in Game A, you are transported/spawned to Game B, still playing but not influencing Game A any more Chumps would just jump from game to game, leaving those taking it 'seriously' to play out a full campaign.

 

[obonicus]

I imagine as some have speculated, some sort of breaking up of the maps and or objectives into smaller segments that would allow for various skirmishes with squads to be happening perhaps even with their own victory conditions which could then tie into the larger team as a whole?

The problem I have with that idea is that you might as well be playing separate missions on separate maps, something like ET:QW's campaign but concurrent.

I'm hoping for something more 'Saving Private Ryanish' -- some people will be cannon fodder and will be mowed down by the MGs up on the beach before they get out of the boat, but the smart/experienced will manage not to be most of the time. And with enough people left, you can make a push. So maybe objectives, ET/RTCW-style, that force the action to move as they're being conquered. For a game like this, I think linear gameplay would trump something more sandboxy, too.

 

[Tap In]

You could get around the 'Doing Nothing When Dead' problem by starting on a different server. If you die in Game A, you are transported/spawned to Game B, still playing but not influencing Game A any more Chumps would just jump from game to game, leaving those taking it 'seriously' to play out a full campaign.

that's a pretty cool idea actually.

it would be interesting to see though how the dwindled teams would handle what are certainly to be large maps.


battlefield BC does something interesting with their gold rush gameplay. at the beginning of each game only a small portion of the map is open and the objectives lie within. after those objects are met, the enemy is pushed back opening up larger section of the map but the objectives are moved as well. this happens several times until game over.

perhaps a game like this could do that in reverse... as objectives are destroyed and people killed, the maps could reduce (by refocusing the objective on a smaller and smaller area) again, assuming no respawns

 

[Shifty Geezer]

that's a pretty cool idea actually.

it would be interesting to see though how the dwindled teams would handle what are certainly to be large maps.

I would guess the objectives would control that. Start the game with objectives for different parties around the outside of the map perhaps, with the final objective in the centre, and a big fight with whoever's left by that point. Getting to the end with the strongest army would be pretty thrilling in that case, if you outnumber them by a lot, and can basically overrun them!

 

[Scott_Arm]

Does this game have guns, and can you shoot them at people? This is what I want to know.

How many of the 255 can be shot? Can they be shot all at once, one at a time, or not at all?

 

[obonicus]

Does this game have guns, and can you shoot them at people? This is what I want to know.

How many of the 255 can be shot? Can they be shot all at once, one at a time, or not at all?

I imagine that if there are explosive weapons, you can actually shoot all 256.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I imagine that if there are explosive weapons, you can actually shoot all 256.

Wow, I'm sold. Is there punching and/or kicking involved? 255 players all kicking at once! Can you imagine?


But on a serious note, a game with that many players is pretty cool. Here's to hoping it's good and not too far off.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I wonder how "lag" free something like this is going to be.

 

[patsu]

I think that the idea can only really work if there wasn't re-spawning. If each side starts with 128 troops, and they're all you get for the fight, suddenly all the tactics become important. Saving allies is essential, as if meeting objectives. That's why the systems work for real military forces. If a soldier could go on a rampage and then respawn, we wouldn't have structured combat and we'd have the same problems in real combat as in online combat. You can't really enforce discipline in a computer game. So I think finite lives, everyone working together for the greater good, is the best way forward...but it'll never happen.

I think so too. I also think that they can find creative ways to minimize waiting time (after they die).