Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

[Elxx]

Esteemed forum member troybob is back, with the second part of his epic essay about the history of Battlefield and what ultimately made it such a success amongst PC gamers.

Strategy, Tactics, and a Fluid Battlefield

Let’s get the definitions (as they relate to BF1942) out of the way. A strategy is the overall plan that would solve the problem of winning the match. Tactics are a plan on how to tackle a certain situation pertaining to your player at a specific instant. So in BF1942, one could say that you would need to find a tactical advantage against a foe if faced with a fight. One could also say that you would need a strategic advantage overall to win the round.

A fluid battlefield means that things change. As an example: Two dark-ages armies running as two groups at each other in an open field is a static battlefield (relative to the next example). Two modern and sophisticated armies using a massive terrain and variable control points and thus variable assets means the fight is never, even five minutes later. This is a fluid battlefield and thus forces adaptation. Luckily we had 64 players, a variety of classes, and a variety of assets at hand to assist us in adapting (cheap shot I know).

Another thing that made BF1942 great was its diversification of tactics and strategy. (On a side-note, a third thing that made BF1942 great was that you didn’t have to use tactics and strategy at all – you could just run around with a knife and stab random vegetation and marine life – whether real or imagined.)

Ah yes who could forget the questions and value weighing as one did every second of a BF1942 match. Oh that’s right – most players did. It’s true. A good game can be graded on how much computing the human brain must do -- assessing a situation, coming up with solutions, weighing risks and rewards of each solution, and executing the best plan. A good game won’t allow you to realize you are doing all of this math in your head. You’re just drooling at the mayhem.

Continue Reading...

The third and final part of troybob's editorial will be posted in a few days. Be sure to check out this and other Editorials, posted straight From the Editors' Desks.

[troybob]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

I disagree completely! This guy is an idiot! (april 1 humor)

thanks for posting this up guys. my wife still hates all of you.

[Simo Glock]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

Patrick Liu recently stated in an interview:
“The number of players doesn't make Battlefield epic. What does matter is a number of systems and design mechanics that contribute to that.”
He is absolutely correct but he ignores a simple fact of logic. In logic you cannot state the opposite of something just because the original is not true. For example, you cannot say that god exists because it has not been proven that he doesn’t exist. In the same fashion, you cannot say that having more than 24 players makes Battlefield any less epic.

EDITOR'S NOTE: We have since learned that the PC's player count is not hardcoded at 24 for Battlefield 1943.

Patrick also stated that the level design is custom made for this smaller number of people. While this is a good thing, why could they not make it capable of 64 players and design the maps for that? Better yet, why not have it 64 player capable and have different versions of each map based on the number of users? Oh wait! They did that with BF2 and it worked out great. You’ll notice; however, that most 32 player servers in BF2 use 64 player maps? Why is this you ask? There are many reasons – but the major reason is because the larger maps are more epic because they allow for greater diversification of assets and attack strategies.

See? There’s diversification again.

64 player maps with 32 players is rubbish. The only thing that allows are sneak attacks in the rear at the main base , asset destroying, flags being capped way over to the right or left somewhere.

Once you have 2 or 3 people spread out defending all of that, you basicly have 12 on 12 at any major "Hot spot" anyway.

Seems like people are only focused on the numbers and not on how the game plays.

Its strange to me that the concept for BC1 has been lost, or never even realized.
BC's Gold rush mode = Having a focal point and a reason to fight. The maps slowly open up as you move foward, this isnt an engine / graffix limitation. Its to keep people focused on the battle at hand.

That being said, I understand that a big reason BF is popular is the fact that it is open world. But people enjoy it for different reasons.
The fact is, BF is a shooter and the point is to wage war.

I believe that this concept is sometimes lost with a large sandbox.
Air vechicles are to offen are used as transport, So the real pilots have to wait in lines, (why were chutes taken out?) (why are choppers alot harder to fly in BC?)

Battlefield is one of, if not the only game to properly mix infantry and vehicles in the multiplayer enviorment.
That is another reason why its so popular. Something the author failed to mention.

Ill add to it that most of the hardcore BC1 players I know havent even played thru the singleplayer campain, nor have most of them ever played PC battlefields.
BF at its core is a mutliplayer game, and that comes across without saying or experience.

I do agree with the attack strategy part tho.. BC1 could use slightly larger maps in some cases.. but angle of attack is not the only strategy in the book. Battlefield's core gameplay mechanic is a rock / paper /scissors analogy. Use this to defeat that, use that to defend this over here, so forth and so on. So flying by overhead faster than anyone can defend it or even see it coming or simply sneaking around the backdoor, can be very simple and fustrating tactics to some players. Not really enhancing the combat feel of the gameplay.

If sneak attacks are whats fun to the player, they still have BF games to play, and you dont even need to spend more money to play it.

Battlefield BadCompany is still fairly diverse when it comes to the fight.
No its not as diverse as its predicessors and can result in to many rounds of gameplay feeling "the same".. But it largely depends on how you choose to play within the sandbox given to you.

Hopefully the Devs understand all of this now, as do the hardcore BF fans that have spent hours and hours mastering BC1.

The proper result for BC2 should be something right down the middle.

[RangerXML]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

A good game for me was good communication and tactics to move around the fight, take out stragglers, capture rear flags and then move in from the back. Reminds me a lot on a WOW raid where on person is assigned to heal, one for ammo and anti tank. It was rare for anyone to play a dedicated Assault class (rather have more medics then assault), cause generally speaking they were useless.

[iQue]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

For me the player limit or server size has zero to do with immersion. 24 is just fine, but being unable to go higher would kinda suck. Hopefully 1943 for PC will have at least 32, and then I'm satisfied.

Patrick also stated that the level design is custom made for this smaller number of people. While this is a good thing, why could they not make it capable of 64 players and design the maps for that? Better yet, why not have it 64 player capable and have different versions of each map based on the number of users? Oh wait! They did that with BF2 and it worked out great. You’ll notice; however, that most 32 player servers in BF2 use 64 player maps? Why is this you ask? There are many reasons – but the major reason is because the larger maps are more epic because they allow for greater diversification of assets and attack strategies.

While I agree with that, the larger the maps and the more the players, the more the game turn into deathmatch. In a smaller scale game, people tend to squad up more and think about what class suit the situation best. People move around in groups and work together, cap flags etc, that is what BF is to me.

In a 64 player game, most people generally don't focus as much as the game objectives and run around doing their own thing. I join a squad, either half the people are snipers or they just joined the squad to use the extra spawn point. Of course there is some teamwork, but you rarely see it to a larger extent unless some random clan decided to squad up.

Sure it's fun to go solo sometimes but it just hurts to join a 64 Karkand server and see 90% medics, or join a 64 Fushe server and see 50% snipers

That's not BF to me.

Many of my best memories from BF2 and 2142 have been from running around on a small server with tight squad, communicating with voice, capping flags and just being generally awesome. No spam, tactics and teamwork prevail. That is BF to me.

I'm not saying that DICE shouldn't add 64 player support, they should for those that like it, but I personally understand their reasoning perfectly well, and if I was selfish I would agree

Well written troy and I wish you luck with the 3rd part.

[RangerXML]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

Larger maps and player count, more distractions for me and my clanmates top cause damages as a squad.

Any [LMS] on to back me up here!

[iQue]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

Larger maps and player count, more distractions for me and my clanmates top cause damages as a squad.

While the rest of the server is highly unorganized, except for maybe another similar squad on the other team.

I'm not gonna go around and say that there's always a lot of teamwork on small servers and never any teamwork on larger servers, because it's not true. But more often than not it is, at least from my experience :p

[Leopardi]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

BC's Gold rush mode = Having a focal point and a reason to fight. The maps slowly open up as you move foward, this isnt an engine / graffix limitation. Its to keep people focused on the battle at hand.

Wrong. BC's Gold rush mode = To compensate the very limited number of players.

[troybob]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

I'm hearing the argument that 24 players is good.

I'm not saying it's bad - but why should that be the max?

Lots of people like 24 player servers. That's why there is a bunch of them. But lots of people also like 64 player servers.

My point is why limit it at 24? Why not give the option to the server admin.

I tend to agree that smaller servers are a better place to find cohesiveness, but we shouldn't be limited on that. Some people like unorganized deathmatches with no teamplay. Diversification. Let the players play the way they want.

Additionally, the more people you have the more calculations you must do in your head which makes the game better IMO. Diversification in tactics don't really change with a huge player count but the overall strategy would probably be a bit different.

[M0t0rBreath]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

Isn't the reason for 24p on xbox is that its the max the xbox can handle, something like that. I bet the PC will have more, to me 32 to 42, something like that will be fine with me.Those numbers are what you usually see on servers and always populated. Also the maps of 1943 are not that small. What i'm worried about are the classes. I'm not sure what each class has, but limiting them hurts the way you accomplish a goal. Is there c4 or dynamite? Landmines, claymores? Etc.

[troybob]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

Isn't the reason for 24p on xbox is that its the max the xbox can handle, something like that. I bet the PC will have more, to me 32 to 42, something like that will be fine with me.Those numbers are what you usually see on servers and always populated. Also the maps of 1943 are not that small. What i'm worried about are the classes. I'm not sure what each class has, but limiting them hurts the way you accomplish a goal. Is there c4 or dynamite? Landmines, claymores? Etc.

from what we are hearing - 24 player limitations will not be on PC so the argument is kinda of moot.

24 on xbox is due to the fact that there are no dedicated servers (iirc). So a server must be run from an xbox.

[Kreepy Kitteh =^o.O^=]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

I like my BF2 servers packed! 24 player servers would SUCK on such large maps.

[Simo Glock]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

Wrong. BC's Gold rush mode = To compensate the very limited number of players.

Wrong. BC has a conquest mode

Gold Rush is alot like Frontlines, Even the Guys that made Desert Combat knew conquest had lived its day.


24 players has nothing to do with Xbox. Or xbox live
It has to do with Peer 2 Peer gaming..
Or Dices own decision to make it that way..

There are games with dedicated servers on Xbox live and some do host up to 50 players.


Its also not something a casual gamer is used to or would want to do... search for a server
So it makes perfect sense for Dice to dev it that way.

Just like Match making... Dedicated servers could be hidden.

You need to learn alittle more about computers before you go out on the internet and say that microsoft has limitations.

Do you even own an xbox? I bought one just because of BC1
So go ahead and thank me for supporting BF3 and helping make it possible.

My point is why limit it at 24? Why not give the option to the server admin.

For 1943 they might not give a choice because its a mini game.. The amount of kits, The map size the amount of vehicles. The fact that its going to be downloadable. All means that its not a major title.. just a fun thing they decided to do.
They could and might bump it up for PC or Xbox if they want to.

As for BC2, i'd bet a large chunk that it will have dedicated servers on the PC.
For the new guys that means there is a special computer out in the middle that does most of the networking load. Allowing your computer, whether its personal or not, only work for the client, running the engine and compressing and uncompressing packets.

[troybob]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

define peer 2 peer gaming. i'm a little lost regarding your justification for 24 players maximum

[imported_Whiskey]

Re: Diversification is the Name of the Game, Part 2 (Editorial)

My point is why limit it at 24?

The easiest answer is that the maps are being designed for that number on Console, due to the limitations of Consoles acting as listen servers, and PC will very likely share the exact same sized maps (ie. same as COD4).

Now, in a perfect world, they would make the maps scale-able to be larger for PC, but realistically, that's A LOT of extra work. It's not as easy as just adding a few extra hundred metres to the edges of the playing area...you have to plan for new bases, vehicle spawns, fields of fire, terrain, buildings, etc, etc, and play-test it all for balance. Console sales will dominate, with PC being only a small slice, 10-20% probably, if it's anything like the COD4 model. That's probably not enough $$$ to justify all that extra work.

from what we are hearing - 24 player limitations will not be on PC so the argument is kinda of moot.

I think they've only mentioned that BF1943 may have a higher player limit. I don't recall reading or hearing anything yet about BF:BC2 (you may be talking only about 1943...I'm only mentioning this because it seems some people are talking about both games in this thread).

24 player servers would SUCK on such large maps.

On a map built for 64, then the gameplay might be too slow for some people. But again, we likely won't see "large" 64-player maps on either 1943 or BC2. The maps are being built with a max 24 players in mind, because that's about the limit for Console listen servers. PC may have maps that can scale larger, but I wouldn't get our hopes up too much. IF they do it, I'll be very impressed, because from a ROI perspective, it's probably not in their best interests to do so.