My Quake Wars 2

(.Chris.) #21

[QUOTE=Indloon;406974]Same destructible environment as Battlefield 3 has!

The game engine should be written up from scratch for PC only.[/QUOTE]

Not played BF3 yet, what can and can’t you destroy?

[QUOTE=Psykorgasm;406975]I was mainly thinking of windows, doors, blowing parts of barriers out for better cover/fire.
I’d also love to be able to lay down a mine in a bush and when it gets set off the bush is destroyed and take down a tree in a heavy vehicle. I mainly think about outdoor maps, there is lots of nice little things that could be destructible inside too though, much more even.[/QUOTE]

Trees and bushes would be good yeah, though you may get people at start of map in a tank or whatever blowing up all the cover available outdoors, either to grief . With a game like ET/ET:QW you need a lot of permanent geometry I reckon, though some more options to open up routes would be welcome as long as there is some ‘cost’ to do doing so.

(tokamak) #22

A game like ET definitely isn’t served with destructible geometry. Due to the time constraint playing such a large role as well as the very strong direction (attack routes, bottlenecks) present in maps, dynamic terrain can become a chore. You may end up having defending players figure out around which corner it’s easy to attak and then spent the first minutes of a map setting the terrain to their liking. It sounds fun the first time around but eventually it starts being a necessary boring task you just do every map.

What does really add value to ET is indeed clear cut and large interactable points of interest. Points in the map that each team can manipulate and reverse. So I’m talking trains, doors, road blocks and bridges. Brink had very little of this going on which was a shame. The options also don’t have to be binary. A bridge doesn’t have to be either constructed or destroyed. Imagine hacking a drawbridge gradually so it starts to move up and down until it’s in whichever position you fancy (and then defend it against other hackers wanting to have the bridge their way). Imagine that while that happens, players are fighting on this bridge while the ongoing conflict over the controls keeps moving it up or down.

That’s the sort of stuff an SD game needs.

(TheG4mer) #23

Don’t you play in clan whose admins set such stupid rules?

(Tandem) #24

no radar!!

(Humate) #25

Trees and bushes would be good yeah, though you may get people at start of map in a tank or whatever blowing up all the cover available outdoors, either to grief . With a game like ET/ET:QW you need a lot of permanent geometry I reckon, though some more options to open up routes would be welcome as long as there is some ‘cost’ to do doing so.

Yes, if etqw was designed as a cover shooter I can understand the power behind knocking down elements of the map.
But yeh, since all the campers are out in the open anyway, theres no real need.

(edxot) #26

my clan has many people. everyone has a diferent idea about the rules. some are admins, others dont.
just like every other clan. including yours.

(BioSnark) #27

I’d like to see maps allowing more variation. For example:

[ul]
[li]Different or dynamic environmental conditions such as time of day, weather, indoor lighting.
[/li][li]Different initial spawn locations for the attacking team to vote on during warm up.
[/li][li]Additional capturable spawn points that aren’t necessarily forward.
[/li][/ul]
Other spawn options. This might include:

[ul]
[li]Better fireteam spawn hosts (or similar spawn mechanic) that can be autoselected by fireteam mates.
[/li][li]Some sort of spawn host like mechanic for GDF, possibly involving airdrops or something that makes it mechanically well differentiated.
[/li][/ul]
Commander role inside the command bunker for the human faction able to use abilities that might include:

[ul]
[li]Airdropped smoke.
[/li][li]Airdropped hp/ammo crates.
[/li][li]Artillery strikes.
[/li][li]Temporary mg implacements.
[/li][li]Temporary tactical shields.
[/li][li]Light vehicles.
[/li][li]Temporary forward spawn drop beacons.
[/li][li]Ordering troops around.
[/li][li]Only role able to see the opponents’ locations on a HUD map.
[/li][/ul]
The non-human faction could do with some:

[ul]
[li]Non-humanoid classes
[/li][li]Greater variation in weapon handling and effect from human faction.
[/li][li]Additional movement options. Goes without saying that this includes a grappling hook.
[/li][/ul]
Vehicles could afford some of the following:

[ul]
[li]Vehicle and deployable spawn rules which dynamically adjust to player count.
[/li][li]Far less vehicle weapon splash damage.
[/li][li]Vehicle physics.
[/li][li]Flyers that need to use strafing runs because they have dramatically reduced munition reload speed, which is not to be confused with rate of fire.
[/li][/ul]
Other things that would be interesting to see:

[ul]
[li]Increased use of multiple primary objectives (see Sewer objective 2 for why.)
[/li][li]Some class that can deploy jump pads, because walls are overrated.
[/li][li]A tactical shield that blocks projectile weapons but not hitscan weapons.
[/li][li]Personal transport vehicles that have a shield projecting turret rather than a weapon.
[/li][li]The dreaded slowtime field, because this is unreal engine 3 and that’s what unreal engine 3 does…
[/li][li]Flying vehicles that automatically self-destruct after 5 seconds of use and permanently ban whoever’s inside them at the time.
[/li][li]Unpropelled hoverboards for skiing down mountains and fatally faceplanting into trees or walls.
[/li][li]Fighting on a huge landing ship hovering over an active volcano that begins as a huge air battle until the attackers can land and breach the hull.
[/li][li]More bulletpoints.
[/li][/ul]

(MoonOnAStick) #28

[QUOTE=BioSnark;407008]…[/QUOTE]I would definitely play this game. If SD could knock this out in time for Christmas, that would be great.

(Humate) #29

Dont have a problem with amplifying up the “wars” aspect of QW, but not a fan of doing it in a way that reminds me of BF.

(tokamak) #30

Well what biosnark is suggesting is mostly increases in the scale in which one single player can affect the fight without actually needing to scale up the battle itself.

(Humate) #31

Talking mechanics here, champ.

(BioSnark) #32

Could you translate that for those of us who haven’t played the battlefield series?

(tokamak) #33

I guess he means the objective points and the tickets they generate. In turn, that’s what I mean with an increased scale of combat.

Battlefield is a domination type of game where the domination points also generate resources for vehicles and such.

(Humate) #34

No probs biosnark. Im just not a fan BF :slight_smile:

BF:
*Spawning on players <- cover shooter mechanic… the only one I have an issue with technically
*Spawning Beacon <- dont mind this
*Commander Role <- would work depending on how its delivered.

The one glaring weakness of GDF is map presence with infantry. A beacon could allow them to parachute onto structures/hills without needing to use the anansi or bumblebee. So this is cool, even though it still reminds me of BF.

For the commander role, I wouldn’t give them free sight of the enemy… that might be a bit too easy given they would also have artillery. Perhaps tie a scan ability and artillery to one powerbar, forcing them to choose. The player can get away with not using scans at all, and dedicate it to artillery if their team can comm where to land it. Or they can go into battleship mode /cough and guess.

I guess he means the objective points and the tickets they generate. In turn, that’s what I mean with an increased scale of combat.

While im definitely not a fan of the ticket system, thats not what i meant.

(DrFunkenstein) #35

Although I suck at chess, I started to see a certain similarity between it and QW at some point.

The fact that there’s a limited choice of classes, a limited choice of weapons and limited set of abilities for each class actually enhances the game for me. There’s enough freedom to tackle a certain problem in a match already. That’s were the game excels for me and team based/objective based games don’t need all the bells and whistles that seem to come with games these days.

Sancta simplicitas.

These are my suggestions, largely base on my experience with QW in it’s current form:

  1. Never ever think you can come up with all the possible ways to do something as a developer. A couple of hundred thousands of players will be enough to come up with ways to play the game you probably never even thought of. That’s not a bad thing, it’s even part of the fun of it, but there should be a way to adapt to that. Developers should be prepared to do this themselves or leave room for server admins to do it for them.

  2. If you implement an XP reward system, please make it more Darwinistic. Don’t give XP for constructing an MG nest, give XP to the constructor based on the actual use of it, the damage done with it or the kills someone got with it. People milking the XP system ruined many a match.

  3. Create some kind of ELO system similar to the one used in chess and give admins the ability to create teams based on that. Humans are humans and there are more then a couple of them that like to go for the easy win. Which is another way to ruin a match. This is not the same thing as assigning people to a certain server based on their ELO rating or whatever you can come up with. It’s about getting matched teams with all the players that are on the server already

  4. Allow people to create their own content. This is related to item 1 in a way. SD started out by doing that, you managed to carve out your own niche and you created some great content but a lot of that had to do with other developers giving people like you the room to do that kind of thing. Please give other people the space to experiment and come up with something of their own!

I realize this is a more a list of dont’s then do’s but I felt I had to get this off my chest.

With all due respect.

Dr. Funkenstein

(tokamak) #36

You’re right, it’s much closer to what Biosnark meant. It’s either one or the other.

Spawning on players doesn’t need to be a problem. It can actually be a very cool unlock. It’s not very different from spawn hosts in ETQW. It’s just that in BF it plays a too large role, at least in a way that is fit for ET.

(Humate) #37

Have you played BF?
Its a cover shooter… that mechanic is based on fighting in groups behind cover.
Thats not how ET is played. :infiltrator:

(BioSnark) #38

Thank you for that clarification. When talking about fireteam spawning, I was thinking of something mechanically limited and less arbitrary like ETQW spawn hosts that defaulted to hatching fireteam mates.

(Humate) #39

No probs. :slight_smile:

i like these ideas too…

Vehicle and deployable spawn rules which dynamically adjust to player count.

A tactical shield that blocks projectile weapons but not hitscan weapons.

  • this one i think is interesting… how would you apply this one biosnark?
    Are we assuming both types exist in different colours for strogg, or is it a GDF version?
(Humate) #40
  1. Never ever think you can come up with all the possible ways to do something as a developer. A couple of hundred thousands of players will be enough to come up with ways to play the game you probably never even thought of. That’s not a bad thing, it’s even part of the fun of it, but there should be a way to adapt to that. Developers should be prepared to do this themselves or leave room for server admins to do it for them.

Sometimes, I think SD were unaware of the creative ways people played the game, and then other times im convinced everything in the game was calculated and planned out.