Mistake 1- BF2142 infantry combat is basically a continuation of BF2 patching process. Which is- slower motion in a more realistic scale, while the firefights are still based on the random cone of fire to increase the TTK (time to kill).
5000 players online, against BF2s 14000 players online tells the story.
An option to for lightning fast action is good. An option to do well in a completely opposite end of the spectrum is even better. An option to have an option is great. Be water, change shape. Infantry combat will be the most crucial part, and it has to be FUN. Not limiting, not bordering, not restricting, but fun. This doesnt mean that the game should be a UT-esque shooter. For example, SWAT4, a close quarters combat tactical shooter is more "free" and "fluid" in its motion, than BF2142. Its all about the control response, fluidness of motion and action. If the character youre playing and controlling, fits like a glove and is comfortable to operate (SWAT4, BF2, Counter Strike 1.6, Call of Duty 4, some others), then the game is fun no matter the format.
Mistake 2- Complete misunderstanding of the concept of science fiction. Its true that you can build a burning lazer using a 8X CD reader laser head and 3 1.5 D battery cells. That is science. Science fiction in a nutshell-laymans terms is taking something that works in real life, and expanding upon it in a what if scenario. You go too far, and you reach Star Trek, with its "photon torpedoes", and you go from sci-fi to fantasy. You tread carefully, and you only go 15 years ahead in time, age of supersonic stealth bombers, VTOL fighters, heavility armored CAS helicopters, Osprey troop carriers and fast moving all terrain APCs. In order to KEEP the immersion, you take what is in today, and expand on it on tomorrow. About Tiberium, even though the world has vastly advanced, the principles are the same. Weve got atmosphere, Newtons 3 Laws and logic. Gameplay immersion comes from understanding how the world in the game operates and gamers ability to relate himself with the world. Immersion in game is one of the most effective sources of addictive and long lasting gameplay. 300 years from now, there will still be tanks and APCs because they serve a specific purpose. Future tech on the field will still be bound to the basic principles
- Functionality
- Cost effectiveness
- Limitations
- Upgradeability and versatility
- Functionality, as an example, a 2 legged walker in todays modern battlefield is a completely useless mechanised vehicle, because even though it might serve as a troop support vehicle, its an easy target for anti vehicular weapons. In theory, its best function is movement on variable terrain (see Metal Gear concept). So if youre throwing such a vehicle in, it has to perform a specific function which cant be performed by conventional vehicles. It most definitely can never spearhead an armored assault.
- Cost effectiveness, its more of a real life guideline.
- Limitations, there are reasons why the Nazi Germany did not complete their "Maus" project. A 188t tank killer with impenetratable armor. Even 3000 years into the future, tech will be limited by nature. In order to increase the level of immersion, limiting the tech to real life and using explanations and methods that actually make sense, introducing the sci-fi elements, greatly improves immersion. For example, anti-gravity does not create immersion. Magnetism and conventional propulsion (See Newtons laws), do. The "thank god we created X device" is a cheap B grade movie excuse.
- Upgradeability, battlefield changes. Just like the multipurpose rifle, the ability to change a vehicles role into another as fast as possible, is a huge advantage. Or, in nowadays standards, a multipurpose chassis is a basis for various specialized vehicles. A LAV-25 meets the concept of Terran Heavy Tank from StarCraft.
Basically- tech must make sense and have a purpose and a reason on the field.
Mistake 3- Complete lack of propagating teamwork in a teamwork-demanding game. This is also done by rewarding single efforts. You want the squad/team based game to work? Dont reward solo efforts. ETQW had the greatest teamwork concept on paper, and it flew right into the garbage bin in practice because SD underestimated the effects of e-ribbons on people. Use e-ribbons to your advantage. Only reward (kudos screen) people who have done tasks which directly influenced the result of the game. Instead of giving credit to players for highest kills, give credit to people who covered the most ground. Who spotted out the most targets. Who targeted the most armor for airstrikes.
Mistake 4- Lack of diversity and options in a changing battlefield. I must say the multi-purpose rifle is definitely a nice move. Why not expand on it? Electromagnetic armor, choosing energy levels in a cut/give fashion, between various functions. Choosing the supporting gear. If a player can customize his gear, while having an abundant number of options, this will directly rewards players intelligence, both pre and in game.
Mistake 5- Releasing a product that needs 1st day patching. See ETQW and FFOW for proof. Even BF2 was released with the only real problem being server crash once every few days or so (optimizing the settings lead to rare server crashes or lack of them).
Mistake 6- Inappropriate level design which does not support the format or dynamics of the firefights nor vehicular combat. And vice versa. Inappropriate firefight dynamics that do not support level design. A simple example, the purpose of a machine gunner in BF2 is to lay down supressive fire. How does it work out in practice? It doesnt.
Mistake 7- Nerfing. Now the first mistake of course is the amateuristic approach to balance in the first place. People LIKE and LOVE BIGAS5 EXPLOSIONS AND BOOMS AND SH!T AND GUTS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE! No matter what people say, an incoming Su-30 with a purpose of carpetbombing is an awesome sight. You dont need to nerf a vehicle that, in real life, would also do serious damage. Balancing vehicles and infantry is one of the hardest tasks. A vehicle should not be something you could shrug off. It should make you tremble in fear. Immersion is the key word. The higher the vehicle is on the food chain, the harder it should be able to be taken down by 1 (one) unit on the lowest level of the food chain. Make it so that 1 tank vs 1 infantry unit will always reward the tanker. But a combination of troops will have a higher chance of taking out a tank, than vice versa.
Mistake 8- Skill vs Automation. In games, if a weapon is an automatically guided, or fire and forget weapon, it should be weak(er). In contrast, a weapon that requires skill, should reward a player even more. It has to be an effective weapon, but reward a lot less. For example, Surface to Air missiles. Either by a balance of damage dealt, or countermeasures given, a SAM should be less rewarding than a surface to air gun platform. Same for vehicles. Anti Tank missiles vs landmines or manually detonated explosives or IEDs. In some respect, this holds true in real life aswell. If we take an anti tank guided missile, it generally has a lower level of RHA penetration, than an anti tank penetrator rod fired from a tank. Electromagnetic impulses, IR blocking devices, you can always either fool or counter high tech. When it comes to a sword, you need to have an equally good shield. And its significantly harder to use a sword.
Mistake 9- User interface. Everything from launching up the game, all the way through playing the game. HUD included. Should be practical, MINIMALISTIC and should enhance the gaming experience and comfortability. In the end, everyone settles down to killing people and blowing up sh!t. The HUD should be supportive to that. Best HUD designes are off your eyesight, limiting it minimalistically while providing all the info you need. Peripheral vision is important, tampering with it is bad.
Mistake 10- Naturally, listening to the community. BF2 is a prime example.
These are just my thoughts, but they are sadly inspired by the fact that BF franchise is the sole ruler of the genre and I wouldnt want that to continue. They got the closest to the perfectly working formula. A shame.
5000 players online, against BF2s 14000 players online tells the story.
An option to for lightning fast action is good. An option to do well in a completely opposite end of the spectrum is even better. An option to have an option is great. Be water, change shape. Infantry combat will be the most crucial part, and it has to be FUN. Not limiting, not bordering, not restricting, but fun. This doesnt mean that the game should be a UT-esque shooter. For example, SWAT4, a close quarters combat tactical shooter is more "free" and "fluid" in its motion, than BF2142. Its all about the control response, fluidness of motion and action. If the character youre playing and controlling, fits like a glove and is comfortable to operate (SWAT4, BF2, Counter Strike 1.6, Call of Duty 4, some others), then the game is fun no matter the format.
Mistake 2- Complete misunderstanding of the concept of science fiction. Its true that you can build a burning lazer using a 8X CD reader laser head and 3 1.5 D battery cells. That is science. Science fiction in a nutshell-laymans terms is taking something that works in real life, and expanding upon it in a what if scenario. You go too far, and you reach Star Trek, with its "photon torpedoes", and you go from sci-fi to fantasy. You tread carefully, and you only go 15 years ahead in time, age of supersonic stealth bombers, VTOL fighters, heavility armored CAS helicopters, Osprey troop carriers and fast moving all terrain APCs. In order to KEEP the immersion, you take what is in today, and expand on it on tomorrow. About Tiberium, even though the world has vastly advanced, the principles are the same. Weve got atmosphere, Newtons 3 Laws and logic. Gameplay immersion comes from understanding how the world in the game operates and gamers ability to relate himself with the world. Immersion in game is one of the most effective sources of addictive and long lasting gameplay. 300 years from now, there will still be tanks and APCs because they serve a specific purpose. Future tech on the field will still be bound to the basic principles
- Functionality
- Cost effectiveness
- Limitations
- Upgradeability and versatility
- Functionality, as an example, a 2 legged walker in todays modern battlefield is a completely useless mechanised vehicle, because even though it might serve as a troop support vehicle, its an easy target for anti vehicular weapons. In theory, its best function is movement on variable terrain (see Metal Gear concept). So if youre throwing such a vehicle in, it has to perform a specific function which cant be performed by conventional vehicles. It most definitely can never spearhead an armored assault.
- Cost effectiveness, its more of a real life guideline.
- Limitations, there are reasons why the Nazi Germany did not complete their "Maus" project. A 188t tank killer with impenetratable armor. Even 3000 years into the future, tech will be limited by nature. In order to increase the level of immersion, limiting the tech to real life and using explanations and methods that actually make sense, introducing the sci-fi elements, greatly improves immersion. For example, anti-gravity does not create immersion. Magnetism and conventional propulsion (See Newtons laws), do. The "thank god we created X device" is a cheap B grade movie excuse.
- Upgradeability, battlefield changes. Just like the multipurpose rifle, the ability to change a vehicles role into another as fast as possible, is a huge advantage. Or, in nowadays standards, a multipurpose chassis is a basis for various specialized vehicles. A LAV-25 meets the concept of Terran Heavy Tank from StarCraft.
Basically- tech must make sense and have a purpose and a reason on the field.
Mistake 3- Complete lack of propagating teamwork in a teamwork-demanding game. This is also done by rewarding single efforts. You want the squad/team based game to work? Dont reward solo efforts. ETQW had the greatest teamwork concept on paper, and it flew right into the garbage bin in practice because SD underestimated the effects of e-ribbons on people. Use e-ribbons to your advantage. Only reward (kudos screen) people who have done tasks which directly influenced the result of the game. Instead of giving credit to players for highest kills, give credit to people who covered the most ground. Who spotted out the most targets. Who targeted the most armor for airstrikes.
Mistake 4- Lack of diversity and options in a changing battlefield. I must say the multi-purpose rifle is definitely a nice move. Why not expand on it? Electromagnetic armor, choosing energy levels in a cut/give fashion, between various functions. Choosing the supporting gear. If a player can customize his gear, while having an abundant number of options, this will directly rewards players intelligence, both pre and in game.
Mistake 5- Releasing a product that needs 1st day patching. See ETQW and FFOW for proof. Even BF2 was released with the only real problem being server crash once every few days or so (optimizing the settings lead to rare server crashes or lack of them).
Mistake 6- Inappropriate level design which does not support the format or dynamics of the firefights nor vehicular combat. And vice versa. Inappropriate firefight dynamics that do not support level design. A simple example, the purpose of a machine gunner in BF2 is to lay down supressive fire. How does it work out in practice? It doesnt.
Mistake 7- Nerfing. Now the first mistake of course is the amateuristic approach to balance in the first place. People LIKE and LOVE BIGAS5 EXPLOSIONS AND BOOMS AND SH!T AND GUTS FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE! No matter what people say, an incoming Su-30 with a purpose of carpetbombing is an awesome sight. You dont need to nerf a vehicle that, in real life, would also do serious damage. Balancing vehicles and infantry is one of the hardest tasks. A vehicle should not be something you could shrug off. It should make you tremble in fear. Immersion is the key word. The higher the vehicle is on the food chain, the harder it should be able to be taken down by 1 (one) unit on the lowest level of the food chain. Make it so that 1 tank vs 1 infantry unit will always reward the tanker. But a combination of troops will have a higher chance of taking out a tank, than vice versa.
Mistake 8- Skill vs Automation. In games, if a weapon is an automatically guided, or fire and forget weapon, it should be weak(er). In contrast, a weapon that requires skill, should reward a player even more. It has to be an effective weapon, but reward a lot less. For example, Surface to Air missiles. Either by a balance of damage dealt, or countermeasures given, a SAM should be less rewarding than a surface to air gun platform. Same for vehicles. Anti Tank missiles vs landmines or manually detonated explosives or IEDs. In some respect, this holds true in real life aswell. If we take an anti tank guided missile, it generally has a lower level of RHA penetration, than an anti tank penetrator rod fired from a tank. Electromagnetic impulses, IR blocking devices, you can always either fool or counter high tech. When it comes to a sword, you need to have an equally good shield. And its significantly harder to use a sword.
Mistake 9- User interface. Everything from launching up the game, all the way through playing the game. HUD included. Should be practical, MINIMALISTIC and should enhance the gaming experience and comfortability. In the end, everyone settles down to killing people and blowing up sh!t. The HUD should be supportive to that. Best HUD designes are off your eyesight, limiting it minimalistically while providing all the info you need. Peripheral vision is important, tampering with it is bad.
Mistake 10- Naturally, listening to the community. BF2 is a prime example.
These are just my thoughts, but they are sadly inspired by the fact that BF franchise is the sole ruler of the genre and I wouldnt want that to continue. They got the closest to the perfectly working formula. A shame.
Comment