Originally Posted by Lokster
Of course there is (or will be) similarities between the two. I also play BF3. You forget one major and distinct difference (aside from the obvious map size and player count) which is persistence and the hard truth that you can't balance things based on a 15 minute "match". Designing gameplay for spurts of 10-15 minutes while knowing a reset is directly afterwards is a completely different animal from designing a game that is persistent with no resets. Also what works with 64 players probably will not work with 2000.
My post was based on comparing an open beta experience of a basic FPS (and how nothing major typically changes before retail) and that of an MMO closed BETA -- where hundreds if not thousands of things change and/or are tweaked before retail (or launch in this case -- since there will be no "retail" fee).
I am confident PS2's BETA will in fact be a BETA where the testers have input and core concepts will be tweaked, added, removed or changed.
And so again, I reiterate the need to wait until BETA, to put forth any serious criticism or debate on the squad spawn issue and/or it's mechanics.
|
Ah yes, whenever I plug the idea of a Battlefield MMO I always tell them they need to not be stuck to the idea of the round ending and the game saying you won and here's your uber KDR, and instead, ask yourself, after an hour or 2 of play, did your squad capture, or at least make progress toward what you were doing? If not, you lost. If so, you won.
As for "2000" players, on average, exactly how many enemies are expected to be within firing range during the course of an attack? Note that enemies down below ground that you'll never see unless you bust through to them don't count as far I mean.
2012-03-19, 07:05 PM
Threaded Mode