BS PALADIN

Multiplayer gametypes

Recommended Posts

Just wondering if you guys were gona try anything different. Even if the gameplay is great gametypes like capture the flag and siege arent exactly immersive. Id love to see mission type MP gametypes. For example demo the bridge or protect the convoy or extract the intel.

Gametypes that actually fit in with the game. In recent years we have seen more and more complicated SP onjectives and missions but MP is still in the dark ages with the same old same old. Capture the flag, deathmatch, defend etc etc I hope you guys can come up with something innovative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nemesis   

I hear what your saying Paladin...but MP is well...MP... a bit like that classic old MP we all still love today called...FOOTBALL :unsure: I dont think anyone has thought about a Tackle the defense & score before the keeper can get back in goal fromthe sideline spinoff :blink: <joke>

What I think you are discussing is MP CO-OP.

I hope we may see some variations though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a good list of types going that includes classics as well as some new kinds. There is no shortage of ideas around here!

 

However, we haven't really tested any out yet so while fun on paper we won't know for sure until they are play tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering if you guys were gona try anything different. Even if the gameplay is great gametypes like capture the flag and siege arent exactly immersive. Id love to see mission type MP gametypes. For example demo the bridge or protect the convoy or extract the intel.

Gametypes that actually fit in with the game. In recent years we have seen more and more complicated SP onjectives and missions but MP is still in the dark ages with the same old same old. Capture the flag, deathmatch, defend etc etc I hope you guys can come up with something innovative.

 

I'm with you 1000% on this. Lately you can get a decent game but the MP is the same old CTF and sharpshooter or Battlefield flag capture. Gets old and makes MP look like an afterthought.

 

I hate to bring up America's Army again (well, not really, I love it LOL) but it did have some great objectives: blow up the blackhawk *and* heal/rescue the pilot---a 2 part objective for success. Or, blow up a radio tower AND a chopper, OR capture just the airstrip building. Multiple objectives that are actually DOING something and make sense. No respawns needed. Even with small maps (I'm talking about the console version, BTW) it was great and just didn't get old.

Multiple objectives made offense and defense interesting. Give us in the MP game what we play in the SP. Most games don't bother to try to do that and they turn into roughly the same shooter game, just different maps.

 

 

We have a good list of types going that includes classics as well as some new kinds. There is no shortage of ideas around here!

 

"Ideas" is GREAT news. Most game makers don't bother with those these days. LOL :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bota:16   

I agree having a purpose in MP is a definate plus (other than just kill the enemy). Though I think what AA did could be taken one step farther and have both teams have to complete an objective and stop the other team from completeing theirs (offense and defense) instead of just one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ick   

I agree having a purpose in MP is a definate plus (other than just kill the enemy). Though I think what AA did could be taken one step farther and have both teams have to complete an objective and stop the other team from completeing theirs (offense and defense) instead of just one or the other.

 

One ideas I can think of off the top of my head:

 

Forced Squad based roles...so when launchibles are on...whole team doesn't bring grenadier weapons. FORCE each team to designate a manditory number of snipers and automatic rifleman and limit the number of grenadiers to 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One ideas I can think of off the top of my head:

 

Forced Squad based roles...so when launchibles are on...whole team doesn't bring grenadier weapons. FORCE each team to designate a manditory number of snipers and automatic rifleman and limit the number of grenadiers to 1.

 

Another great feature from AA. Not everyone could be a grenadier, not everyone could be sniper, not everyone could call in airstrikes...it was really nice and brought out team play and tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grendel   

I believe that all focus should be put on a cooperative campaign mode (or perhaps the ability to play through the single-player with friends).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cooperative game mode is defenitely the thing I am looking forward to the most.

 

There is one "player versus player" game type I awlays wanted to see in a game, a SIMUNITION simulated training mission. All soldiers are obviously (in that case) Americans, controlled by players, they form two teams and receive their objectives (in a briefing that equals on both sides, except the different tasks). The locations may be a training ground, in the woods, etc.

On the one and the same map various objectives can be simulated, which allows for a greater variety of simulated missions.

 

I know, Special Forces use live rounds in training, but I doubt they would do it in a operative versus operative training. The question is only: do Special Forces have this kind of training? From a Canadian reservist I know that JTF-2 are doing this with regular soldiers.

 

 

I think this kind of multi player game type can be tons of fun, because it has different circumstances compared to a real mission, circumstances that make this game type more beliveable compared to most multi player games, that try to simulate real combat but often fail on the immersion level (which cooperative games do not).

 

A "real mission" player versus player multi player game often requires role playing (which I like actually), where the one side needs to be the Special Forces group (something all players want to be) and the others are the way to smart "Tangos" with inferior weapons.

A SIMUNITION training mission type has the classical "equal sides" game play feature which is beliveable in that case and beloved by the classical "oldschool" multi players, even if the one side is forced to use AK type weapons, they are still the same well trained operatives that just mimic enemies.

Edited by Psychomorph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another great feature from AA. Not everyone could be a grenadier, not everyone could be sniper, not everyone could call in airstrikes...it was really nice and brought out team play and tactics.

 

 

unfortunately AA's system is kinda flawed in the same aspect. I find myself being a better player for the team overall if I'm using a saw as apposed to the M16 every Rifleman gets, I find that by "designating" only 2-3 spots to one class that's filled up by Idiots is ignorant.

 

forcing someone to play a "Class" as opposed to allowing a player to play and create his own uniqe class with his own equipment setup is :wall:

 

AA's system is good if every one is mediocre but if you are a excellent player as a class that is limited and already filled then no one on the team benifits...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213   

Agreed, that is the thing that annoys me the most with AA. I am an adult, I don't need to be told what weapon to use.

 

but since you're supposed to be in the army, you are assigned duties and weapons. besides, if everyone got their desired weapons, you'd see entire teams running around with sniper or 203s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but since you're supposed to be in the army, you are assigned duties and weapons. besides, if everyone got their desired weapons, you'd see entire teams running around with sniper or 203s.

 

 

Very true.

Other games don't require fire teams to set up and you end up with an imbalance of roles in there. All grenadiers, all snipers whatever. In GR almost no one runs an automatic to provide support. Everyone wants the kills, not teamwork. AA got around that. Play with people you know and then you get the role you're best at. AA also required a certain rank to open up a role to you, to be sure you were familiar with the game first. Could be perfected, you ran through the ranks very quickly, but it was a better system than the anarchy of every other game I've played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One ideas I can think of off the top of my head:

 

Forced Squad based roles...so when launchibles are on...whole team doesn't bring grenadier weapons. FORCE each team to designate a manditory number of snipers and automatic rifleman and limit the number of grenadiers to 1.

 

The situation will force that. The tactics necessary for victory will require you to look at the map and mission and equip each person accordingly. Get those teams where everyone wants to snipe and you will see some angry losers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, we haven't really tested any out yet so while fun on paper we won't know for sure until they are play tested.

 

Well, if you want someone to play test those ideas for you, please, feel free to call me any time, e-mail me for my phone number, or send me yours and I will call on my dime :w00t:

 

I like your idea of new types because you can never have too much variety in gaming, but still the same 'ol cannot be beat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bota:16   

but since you're supposed to be in the army, you are assigned duties and weapons. besides, if everyone got their desired weapons, you'd see entire teams running around with sniper or 203s.

 

If the weapons are done right then the sniper or 203s wouldn't always be a wise choice. If I am not mistaken this is a special forces game and as such each team member would be well trained with any weapon. This goes along with what I was saying, let the player make the choice of whether or not he/she wants to do what it takes to win instead of just getting kills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more thinking of gametypes that include secondary objectives to add another layer of tactical choice in the MP aspect of the game. For example the attacking team has to demo 2 of 3 bridge supports but they have a secondary objective of knocking out the enemys communication relay so that the enemy team will no longer have radio comms ( not exactly realistic but a fun option ) OR an attacking team has to hunt and kill the enemy team but they can capture an enemy intel centre so has to gain satellite coverage. They are just rough ideas but they would make MP so much more rewarding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As already written here: http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/ind...pic=214&hl= I really hope to see asymmetrical gametypes. Instead of the same amount vs same kind of soldiers, I like to see a larger group of insurgents or opfor vs a small elite unit.

 

I would like to see some sort of ambush gametype. Where one team has to ambush the vehicle column of the other team.

 

And I also would really like to see a hostage rescue or assassination (aka President) mode where the emphasis lays on storming a building.

 

But like you said it's really time for something different I really hope BFS will come up with something new and original, cause a good MP for me is the most important aspect of a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ick   

The situation will force that. The tactics necessary for victory will require you to look at the map and mission and equip each person accordingly. Get those teams where everyone wants to snipe and you will see some angry losers.

 

Whilst I agree that your premise is sound....in practical usage in games rarely is this EVER the case. A healthy mix of classes generally DOES NOT result in victory. I have found this to be true in virtually every game I have played.

 

For the most part there are one to three stronger weapons that should be chosen over the others.

 

For example......

 

Ghost Recon (any of the series)...if launchibles are on then your team better have a large number of players with them equipped and better be able to use them to great effect. Sure, other classes are usefull, but if launchables are on the game centers around that.

 

Ghost Recon (any of the series)...if launchables are off then the best teams are a mix of riflemen and marksmen. Depending on the map...generally more rifleman.

 

(Ghost recon is unique in that among a class generally there is no "one" strongest weapon...each has advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately between classes though...all is not equal)

 

One of the Rainbow 6 games (Raven Shield) the 50 cal sniper was the weapon to have.

 

Rainbow6 Vegas = A game with its own problems to be sure, but generally not a sniper game. You can pick between any of the other classes, but here again, a mix of weapoons doesn't give a team an advantage. The game mostly comes down to raw skill, not weapon selection.

 

Chromehounds did a pretty darn good job of providing weapons, maps, and materiel that allowed players to explore a myriad of "specialties" to some effect...but even that was limited. Generally proper usage of the large cannons ruled the day...with some minor game effect to scouts, snipers, NA makers, and other alternatives. I haven't played that game much, especially recently, but that is my understanding.

 

...there are other examples, but you get the idea. Now as for this current game here to be titled? Well, it sure would be refreshing to have a title that requires such a mix of team skills and classes for greater effectiveness.

 

For the most part most games, once they have been played to some extent by the public, end up being boiled down to one to three weapons.

Edited by Ick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ick   

That convoy ambush thing sounds great. Perhaps one team in vehicles on a long windy road through a map. Other team can ambush anywhere along the windy road.

 

Oh....another idea......my idea acutally. We played this game in Ghost Recon called Mogadishu Siege. It was a blast. It took some tweaking but here was the setup:

 

Mogadishu Siege

Inspiration: Movie Blackhawk Down

We are the greatest nation because of the individual soldier, not because of our military might.

 

Team 1 = USA.

Players: 4 members

Restrictions: must have 1 of each class (rifleman, marksman, grenadier, auto-rifleman)

Weapons: May bring any class appropriate weapon or swap on the battlefield.

# of respawns: One each for a total of 4.

Objective: Keep other team from taking the base (Siege)

 

Team 2 = Militia

Players: 12 members

Restrictions: Must be all rifleman or auto-rifleman

Weapons: may only bring AK 47, AK-47 LMG, hand grenades. NO OTHER WEAPONS and NO SMOKE GRENADES.

# of respawns: One each for a total of 12

Objective: Take the base (Siege)

 

 

Notes:

--Designed for full 16 person rooms.

--Not all maps were suited to this gametype.

--Some maps you needed more on the USA team, 4 guys simply couldn't hold them all off.

--Other maps 3 on USA team could hold off hordes of enemies.

--Each map seemed to have a different feel.

--Sometimes increaseing settings to 3 individual respawns increased the fun immensely.

AK-47 in the hands of a larger force was very inaccurate...but when you added quantity of enemy team...it gave you the feel of the Black Hawk Down movie. Keep in mind that increasing it to 3 individual respawns means that the USA team gets 16 lives...whilst the Mogadishu Militia gets 48 lives but can only use AK-47.

--proper use of each class was crucial....deploying sniper in the best spot and protecting the grenadier was key.

--It worked best if you chose 4 to be USA...then at game end had a different 4 to play as USA...then after that game have another 4 play as USA....and so on. Gave everyone a chamce to experience a total siege like that.

--The attacking Mogadishu Militia eventually found that they had to organize attacks of their 12 guys at once or create total havoc to take the base.

Edited by Ick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Ick that depends on the mission. You have to analyze METT-TC. BTW, I never said healthy mix. Healthy mix isn't a correct answer. Applicable weapon systems is the correct answer. Sometimes everyone may need a close quarters weapon.

 

What is the mission? Suppression? (Deathmatch) What about ********. Or ********. Perhaps ********* or a mission where you *********? Sorry, if I use the mission names, then you'll know. But other than Suppression, these aren't your standard fare.

 

Heavy weapons are not everyone's thing, but on some of the missions you definitely need a Mk48.

 

What is your plan. Are you defending terrain? Are you conducting an assault or are you planning a more stealthy attack based on recon followed by systematic attrition? WHat do you do when things go to hell?

 

I can't change the facts that some people wind up using 3 weapons in other games. But in reality, how many different weapons do you think SOF teams use. Don't look at Hollywood, look at reality. Discount mounted weapons - although those are in the game. :thumbsup: Some games lack so much they feel they can compensate by offering 50 assault rifles. Or else they spent all of their time on the weapons and zero on the gameplay.

 

If I only had 1 weapon but the play was tight, I would stay with that a lot longer than a game with 100 weapons and ######ty gameplay.

 

Also, the rules of the game (the institution of reality, or rather the lack of it) allow such narrow choices.

 

Conversely, It must be realized that often a great many actions can be performed with a single weapon. When I can take an M4, air you out at 300+ meters, clear rooms and then suppress you as well, do I need to get a different weapon? Sometimes. Realize if someone is under cover or moving it makes it near impossible to hit them at a distance under real circumstances with an M4. In suppression, 30 round mags mean sooner or later I have to reload. That means there are gaps where action can be taken. But when am I reloading? There comes reverse suppression and the need for tactics and communication.

 

War isn't always surgical like the movies. Often it is a brutal bloody fight that comes down to some very ugly circmstances. We will duplicate that.

 

IN MP you are up against unpredictable humans. You will still have people doing crazy things because there isn't a true penalty of death for their actions.

 

They will still do suicidal things but of course we have that now in the real world.

 

This post isn't an answer to your questions Ick, it is more of a commentary. But we will do our best to insure that real world rules are in place that mean real world success is based on adapting to those principles and then learning where daring and imaginative thinking that apply the tactics of warfare will win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that your premise is sound....in practical usage in games rarely is this EVER the case. A healthy mix of classes generally DOES NOT result in victory. I have found this to be true in virtually every game I have played.

 

For the most part most games, once they have been played to some extent by the public, end up being boiled down to one to three weapons.

 

Well, since the governing principle of this game is going to be NORG, a look at real-life troopers should give an indication of which weapons will be used the most:

 

The intermediate-caliber assault rifle/carbine (M4 e.c.t.) provides you with a balanced mix of handling qualities, range, accuracy, terminal performance and firepower.

 

Now, if you're going to be in a semi-static position with intermediate engagement ranges (say 200-400m), then a light machinegun might be the weapon for you. If you can overlook a very large area at longer ranges, then a sniper rifle is probably the weapon of choice. And if you spend all your time inside buildings and other structures, engaging hostiles at point blank range then a submachinegun might be the right tool for the job.

 

But if you can't choose your battlefield, or if the conditions vary, then the assault rifle is likely the best compromise. I bet you'll see the majority of players armed with assault rifles.

 

Funny how that corresponds with real life, eh? John has already stated that weapons will not be tweaked for balance, and I agree wholeheartedly.

 

But that doesn't necessariy mean that the other weapons won't be used. A well-organised MP team will likely add machineguns, sniper rifles and whatnot to their inventory and issue it to players who know how to use them and know what their role is. And it will provide them with an additional advantage over un-organised teams where everyone is running around doing their own thing.

 

Oh and you're absolutely right that very many games often have players using the same two or three weapons. Considering that, usually, these weapons are tweaked for balance, it means that the developers have done a really poor job.

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ick   

Hatchetforce,

 

I like your eye for analysis there.

 

Let me just say good luck reconciling reality to Hollywood. It would seem to me that you have FOUR demons to fight in the development of this game:

 

Reality

buyer opinions as generated by hollywood

what is fun

what works and is "do-able"

 

Good luck with that.

 

Oh, don't overlook the Mogadishu siege post. That got posted between there...

Edited by Ick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hatchetforce,

 

I like your eye for analysis there.

 

Let me just say good luck reconciling reality to Hollywood. It would seem to me that you have FOUR demons to fight in the development of this game:

 

Reality

buyer opinions as generated by hollywood

what is fun

what works and is "do-able"

 

Good luck with that.

 

Oh, don't overlook the Mogadishu siege post. That got posted between there...

 

 

You are correct Ick... If.... we were going for the mass market audience. We are not. Would I like to sell a million units? Hell yeah! But, that is not our goal. We are also not going for a narrow niche market of super ultimate sim either. Our target market is modest, but sustainable and not one that we would need to continually spoon feed with continuous action and over the top sequels.

 

Though you're points are still valid, just not as important than if we were shooting for a mass market hit......... though fun and do-able are always on the list of must haves!

 

We are going for something very particular and sustainable. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now