I think we agree that ‘services’ are very important for players, it’s the reason behind the creation of Fireteam.
Personally I’m also a huge fan of getting exciting highlights into matches for spectators, we don’t have many right now but we are consciously working towards getting some in there. LoL, SC2 and Dota 2 are great inspirations to us of how to build an interesting story into an eSports match, complete with key moments.
Gameplay wise I think all past games have been largely great when judged on their own merits, the main things that can be improved is things like what Valdez as touched on and also engine issues. ET:QW had some great features like friendlists, clan formations and so on, expand on this further with being able to challenge other clans in game, have chat options and other tools like that, things to make it really easy to play with fiends and to join in games, not at the expense of a decent server browser though, again ET:QW had a really good browser.
Next thing is the in game options, why did we have to spend ages getting the perfect .cfg before? ET:QW improved on the older games by having loads of options in the menu to configure the game, the crosshair and HUD options were immense, you could set the individual alpha on pretty much everything and change colours of certain other things, through the menu. More stuff like this would be great, as to not overwhelm the average player tuck them away in a advanced settings sub menu, perhaps even a total HUD customisation menu, move, remove, colour, alpha and scale of hud elements on some HUD editor screen, that would be all kinds of goodness.
Video recording would be another thing I’d try to really improve on, having your players upload videos and share them is great, from silly little derp moments to offer a little chuckle to frag movies showing off how the game can be played at a high level, anything to get that sort of thing happening easier than it was in past games would be very welcome.
Last one can think of is just a general thing, make sure the game runs smoothly, I’m pretty sure ET:QW, Wolf09 (I know SD didn’t make it) and Brink would have faired better if the engine used for them worked better, even with mods that made the first two games mentioned more suitable for competition the smoothness of the game was very hit and miss and was frustrating at times due to the inconstancy in fps, ping and hit registration, wasn’t great to compete in that situation. The last one especially, was disheartening to be having an epic battle against a cyclops as a solider with a rocket launcher, get him down to low health, move in for the final shot, shoot, hit, no damage, then you die from his shot. In pub it wasn’t as bad as there was a lot more happening but still frustrating.
I completely agree with this part. I find that it’s the effective means of allowing players of varying skill and motivation to live in synergy by matching them with others of similar status. One of the best ways to maintain interest among game consumers is of course to first have a polished product, but then to give them consistently enjoyable experiences when playing. In this case it would be promoting balanced playing environments and also allowing players to transition from one skill group to the next. Even the lowest forms of pub become competitively driven to the extent that there’s a measurable means of improvement, which is a huge hook for a lot of people. When your given the opportunity to win more than you lose, your more motivated to learn and progress, effectively resulting in long lasting support for a game title. I find this to be especially vital for this genre as the general masses are often turned off by things they don’t understand and become quickly frustrated when they can’t compete with those that do or simply find it all too confusing. A complete set of user options and a convenient means of communication and interaction are hugely beneficial. A game can be really tough to play and learn, but it’s making it user friendly and welcoming that let’s you get away with having a complex game that anyone can play with ease.
As far as I am concerned with RTCW, it’s just one of many good games. We can take things from all sorts of games in a similar fashion, but we need to discern our own personal experiences, opinions, and specific habits from what the real important elements were. What’s at the core of all these games?
-fast paced movement
-aim tracking
-classes
-objectives
-map flow
-incentive towards balance
-complete user features and tools
A lot of other details are not exactly what we should be completely focused on from my perspective. Sure a lot of these things were really cool and we liked them, but it’s the concepts and implementation at the core. Too many specific numbers are getting mixed in with the core concepts, which ends up distracting us from the real issues of importance. I liked a lot of ETQW weapons and I’ll say stuff like “why not just make it like the ETQW one”, but what I really liked was the fact that you had access to a huge arsenal of weaponry that was incredibly well balanced and required a lot of skill to use well. If RTCW did something really well or any game for that matter we should examine in full detail why we liked it so much or why it worked, and I am sure we will find a definitive reason. Then we can apply the method or concept to ideas/items in DB or simply expand on it. I often see the copy and pasting of the written ideas into similar games to never be as good simply because there was always more to it than met the eye. Doc runs as one example were great because they promoted more mobile action and map flow, spread players out, made for more strategic variety, etc. I mean DB has doc runs right now, but it’s incredibly bland and boring because it only made it as far as replicating the raw objective type. I’d say the bigger goal is not to necessarily replicate old maps, but instead to promote more synergy between the objectives and the maps themselves. The loss of the forward spawn, multi-spawn points, and side objectives are hugely attributable to the general feeling of confinement on the maps. Why would you ever want to stray further than the first line of defense if there’s no real reason to (disregard the choke on WL)? I strongly remember fully using every square inch of space in ETQW maps, even on the less well designed maps. There’s certain inventions of the old games that were responsible for making them work so well, and again not specifically the numbers behind them but the ideas themselves. I could drone on forever about it, but that’s pretty much where I stand.
They were only dwarfed by CS, ET and RTCW were very popular, et:qw was much less so.
Adding lots of stuff from different games just winds up like a brink scenario a bloated and confused game trying to be too many things at once.
I agree with Kendle’s post, and the way I talked in the OP about remaking the classes to make them really depend on eachother and so on was just my roundabout way of saying that. I was trying to pinpoint the general ideas.
[QUOTE=HellToupee;433103]They were only dwarfed by CS, ET and RTCW were very popular, et:qw was much less so.
Adding lots of stuff from different games just winds up like a brink scenario a bloated and confused game trying to be too many things at once.[/QUOTE]
Do you have the numbers of RTCW? I know ET had the largest player base as it was f2p, but I think of the popular FPS as COD, CS, BF, Quake, UT back in the day. I can even see a lot of the more popular F2P titles having larger bases in their prime too. Brink didn’t add stuff from different games, it made a game based entirely off of team interaction and nerfed the shooting aspect of FPS. I can’t say Brink is a valid example of combining all the good ideas, since it was mostly a game that was meant to satisfy the crowd that found ET style shooting too difficult and wanted team work to be the deciding factor. Overall these games have never really been as acclaimed as the main stream, so it would be really nice if there was a way to make DB really successful and attractive to every gamer without jeopardizing anything that makes it what it is.
RTCW was bigger than quake and UT there was no CoD and battlefield was a year after RTCW at the time the next most popular game was MoH:AA whos player base later went to CoD.
Brink had tonnes of elements from other games felt like it was trying to be ET, TF2 and some RPG as well as console and pc game at the same time, tried to please everyone, pleased no one.
Trying to be succinct:
-I think RTCW had the best class balance of any class based game ever. End of story. Everyone needed the medic. Everyone needed the FOPS. everyone needed the engineer.
-I think RTCW had shorter maps. SD started making maps that were designed to run 20-30 minute with 3-5 objectives. I have always felt that maps with a 15 min pub max timer are the best. Not to long to get raped. Not to long to dominate. Fewer objectives to balance. Potentially better for comp too.
I loved ET. The things I didn’t like I’ve largely chalked up to an unfinished/unbalanced product being released gratis.
-prone. I feel games are much better without. BC2>BF3. RTCW>ET in this respect.
-Ammo/health chests. Teamwork bitches. get that **** outta here.
-Too many damn mines allowed. I’m cool with some mines, but not 6.022x10^23 mines.
-Medic adrenaline, medic ammo, etc. Just see my first point. This point goes more most pub ET upgrades.
-Railgun, stock battery. Honestly, I never liked stock Goldrush either.
-Escort missions. Nobody likes these. Not in TF, not in ET. Why? Imo it’s because player movement is so much faster than vehicle movement. So. Damn. Frustrating. I understand fast vehicle movement doesn’t create map “phases” as the offense can blitzkrieg the def but damn…
Things I thought ET did better than RTCW.
-The shooting mechanic
-allied weapons = axis weapons
Things I liked from both games
-No matter which class I played, I always felt like I had a chance to kill anyone else on the map. This is why Anti’s thoughts that the soldier should be the breaker scares me. At current times during this alpha/prealpha I have felt like I have no chance winning a 1v1 versus a soldier of equal skill.
-I love to play engineer. What I loved on both games was the drama of the last second arm and the last second defuse. I think if you people about their most memorable matches it isn’t the rape of team X, but when they won or lost the match by the short hairs. Planting/defusing shouldn’t be lotto, but it should be contentious.
What was this thread about again?
[QUOTE=EnderWiggin.DA.;433335]Trying to be succinct:
-I think RTCW had the best class balance of any class based game ever. End of story. Everyone needed the medic. Everyone needed the FOPS. everyone needed the engineer.
-I think RTCW had shorter maps. SD started making maps that were designed to run 20-30 minute with 3-5 objectives. I have always felt that maps with a 15 min pub max timer are the best. Not to long to get raped. Not to long to dominate. Fewer objectives to balance. Potentially better for comp too.
I loved ET. The things I didn’t like I’ve largely chalked up to an unfinished/unbalanced product being released gratis.
-prone. I feel games are much better without. BC2>BF3. RTCW>ET in this respect.
-Ammo/health chests. Teamwork bitches. get that **** outta here.
-Too many damn mines allowed. I’m cool with some mines, but not 6.022x10^23 mines.
-Medic adrenaline, medic ammo, etc. Just see my first point. This point goes more most pub ET upgrades.
-Railgun, stock battery. Honestly, I never liked stock Goldrush either.
-Escort missions. Nobody likes these. Not in TF, not in ET. Why? Imo it’s because player movement is so much faster than vehicle movement. So. Damn. Frustrating. I understand fast vehicle movement doesn’t create map “phases” as the offense can blitzkrieg the def but damn…
Things I thought ET did better than RTCW.
-The shooting mechanic
-allied weapons = axis weapons
Things I liked from both games
-No matter which class I played, I always felt like I had a chance to kill anyone else on the map. This is why Anti’s thoughts that the soldier should be the breaker scares me. At current times during this alpha/prealpha I have felt like I have no chance winning a 1v1 versus a soldier of equal skill.
-I love to play engineer. What I loved on both games was the drama of the last second arm and the last second defuse. I think if you people about their most memorable matches it isn’t the rape of team X, but when they won or lost the match by the short hairs. Planting/defusing shouldn’t be lotto, but it should be contentious.
What was this thread about again?[/QUOTE]
Some very good points here.
[QUOTE=EnderWiggin.DA.;433335]Trying to be succinct:
-I think RTCW had the best class balance of any class based game ever. End of story. Everyone needed the medic. Everyone needed the FOPS. everyone needed the engineer.
-I think RTCW had shorter maps. SD started making maps that were designed to run 20-30 minute with 3-5 objectives. I have always felt that maps with a 15 min pub max timer are the best. Not to long to get raped. Not to long to dominate. Fewer objectives to balance. Potentially better for comp too.
I loved ET. The things I didn’t like I’ve largely chalked up to an unfinished/unbalanced product being released gratis.
-prone. I feel games are much better without. BC2>BF3. RTCW>ET in this respect.
-Ammo/health chests. Teamwork bitches. get that **** outta here.
-Too many damn mines allowed. I’m cool with some mines, but not 6.022x10^23 mines.
-Medic adrenaline, medic ammo, etc. Just see my first point. This point goes more most pub ET upgrades.
-Railgun, stock battery. Honestly, I never liked stock Goldrush either.
-Escort missions. Nobody likes these. Not in TF, not in ET. Why? Imo it’s because player movement is so much faster than vehicle movement. So. Damn. Frustrating. I understand fast vehicle movement doesn’t create map “phases” as the offense can blitzkrieg the def but damn…
Things I thought ET did better than RTCW.
-The shooting mechanic
-allied weapons = axis weapons
Things I liked from both games
-No matter which class I played, I always felt like I had a chance to kill anyone else on the map. This is why Anti’s thoughts that the soldier should be the breaker scares me. At current times during this alpha/prealpha I have felt like I have no chance winning a 1v1 versus a soldier of equal skill.
-I love to play engineer. What I loved on both games was the drama of the last second arm and the last second defuse. I think if you people about their most memorable matches it isn’t the rape of team X, but when they won or lost the match by the short hairs. Planting/defusing shouldn’t be lotto, but it should be contentious.
What was this thread about again?[/QUOTE]
Agreed, with pretty much everything. Particularly about RTCW having the most balanced classes (and as a result the best team play of any team based fps), and the non level playing field between classes. The thing is - I don’t see how having an uber combat class makes the game any more fun or interesting. So the soldier will be a bit tanky and be the first to go through the breach - that’s about as involved as it will get. There may be a bit more focus fire, but really very little is being added. Not enough to warrant borking the balance between classes.
These games were nigh on perfect so tricky.
ET - Perfect.
Brink - Il just mention SMART. id rather poke my eyes out with a red hot poker than use that again.
QW -
[ul]
[li]Leaderboard, stats. Grinding specific things to get up a ladder.[/li][li]no rotateable doors. creeeek![/li][li]no flag spawn cap - but do-able in a custom map ;)[/li][li]having to repair things, urgh![/li][li]unlimited nades in crates. <- bad[/li][li]lack of mover objects in general.[/li][li]lack of destructables. ie windows, objects, buildings.[/li][li]lack of blood, pools etc[/li][li]no flying body parts.[/li][li]only 16 player teams max- giv moar and we can build the maps we hav the technology. oops no we dont but if we did …[/li][li]no easy video making, as chris said. i suck at making videos but i want it polished and instant.[/li][li]Player model expressions plus mouth mime on voip or vsay. <-good[/li][/ul]
[QUOTE=iwound;433619]These games were nigh on perfect so tricky.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure that’s true, just maybe the issues aren’t obvious.
One thing that jumps out at me that we’ve already changed is class selection on death. I don’t have to go to the limbo menu any more and to me that seems great. Of course many of you had configs with hot keys to do this in the past, but for the players who don’t know how to make configs that could have been quite the annoyance, digging in and out of this menu all the time.
Looking at what you configed, or what mods added, might be another good way to find what wasn’t working in our previous titles…
Yeah, this was what I was trying to say before, in the past games, more so ET and ET:QW you had to do a lot of stuff in configs which could be bindable or changeable in the menu, I never liked config editing, by all means keep it there but more options and functions in game would be great. Have all your standard options in the main menu and perhaps and advanced options sub menu with a lot more going on there.