Servers with FF:Off

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by IronMole

An FPS game is different to an MMOFPS.


Lol @ SOE, they might as well just make this game a BF replica. Let's just face it, the whole game has been influenced heavily from BF and very little elements of the original game is even in.

No FF servers, hardcore severs... Lol.. What's next? Infantry only servers?

Well, look at is this way: FF should be on, and there should be NO 3D spotting, killcam or automatic spotting...but if they are going to have these things, wouldn't you rather have an option to play on a server without them?

Of course, those are all examples of things that shouldn't exist period, so while, if they must exist, we should have options, they still shouldn't exist, because people will become reliant on such crutches, and FPS gameplay will continue down the toilet bowl.

Not everything in BF is bad and not everything in BF is even unique. The key is avoiding the bad stuff in Battlefield. Such as also, 1 hit kills nonheadshot, or indeed, 1 hit kills even with headshot, if they start putting that in, then yes the sky would be falling.

[Aractain]

Originally Posted by IronMole

So, people like you then?

Yes. So if I play in an enviroment with some uberl33t dood I will get plenty of tells along the lines of "OMFG N00B LRN2AIM!M!M!M!"k"!"!" which indicates to me that his enjoyment of the game may be affected by my incompetent grenade launcher usage. My bad.

Im only thinking of you all when I say friendly damage might not be the best of ideas.

[IronMole]

Originally Posted by Aractain

Yes. So if I play in an enviroment with some uberl33t dood I will get plenty of tells along the lines of "OMFG N00B LRN2AIM!M!M!M!"k"!"!" which indicates to me that his enjoyment of the game may be affected by my incompetent grenade launcher usage. My bad.

Im only thinking of you all when I say friendly damage might not be the best of ideas.

Then the solution to that is; to learn to aim...

FF and a points system needs to be in place to prevent the game just becoming one big spam fest - BF/CoD anyone?

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by IronMole

Then the solution to that is; to learn to aim...

FF and a points system needs to be in place to prevent the game just becoming one big spam fest - BF/CoD anyone?

That's a MAJOR example of a casualization that BF3 has brought. Most of the Battlefield 2 servers I played on had friendly fire on, but now, most BF3 servers have it off. Even clans that always went for friendly fire in BF2 now turn it off. There are a lot of reasons for it, but not the least is that DICE has given all vehicles unlimited ammo, that means major tank shell, chopper cannon, etc spamming, and people can carry 10 AT rockets(unlimited infantry ammo is coming, I called it), and so on. I mean, with things being that way, and considering the influx of CoD players, you almost can't blame the longtime Battlefield clans for adopting FF off. But the key is that it wasn't just people suddenly decided to turn FF off, but that DICE watered down the gameplay so bad that even staunch FF on clans now are forced to turn it off.

And while some things from Battlefield are worthy of emulation, the philosophy of watering down the game as I just described is not one of the things worthy of emulation. I know; there's a dedicated group over at the Mordor forums who lobby daily against half the design decisions of BF3. SOE would do very well to remember that BF3 is not unanimously accepted by the Battlefield community, and should be very careful about what they do and do not emulate.

[headcrab13]

For a smaller-scale game, I'd say "sure, that's fine if those pansies want to play on a carebear server. Whatever."

But for PS2, I don't want to see the normal (FF on) server decreased by even one lamer who's scared of grief points.

[bjorntju1]

Originally Posted by Trolltaxi

Dividing playerbase is never a good idea.

So the entire game should only have one server then?

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by bjorntju1

So the entire game should only have one server then?

Well, yes, and if they made it one huge mega continent like WW2OL, it could be. But that's nothing to do with avoiding splitting the playerbase.

Some people say "oh, what about loading zones" with a mega continent? And I say well, what does WW2OL do about that?

And others will say "oh, SOE wants to hand craft continents, do you know how detailed and costly that is" and to that I say, gameplay>graphics, they could just handcraft certain features(mountains, valleys, etc) and then computer-randomize them to create the mega-continent.

[bjorntju1]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Well, yes, and if they made it one huge mega continent like WW2OL, it could be. But that's nothing to do with avoiding splitting the playerbase.

Some people say "oh, what about loading zones" with a mega continent? And I say well, what does WW2OL do about that?

And others will say "oh, SOE wants to hand craft continents, do you know how detailed and costly that is" and to that I say, gameplay>graphics, they could just handcraft certain features(mountains, valleys, etc) and then computer-randomize them to create the mega-continent.

But they aren't going to do one server as far as I know. I don't see any problem's with creating a FF:on server and an FF:off server. If the demand for a FF:on server grows higher, they could always add an extra server. Such as 4 FF:on severs and 2 FF:off servers. I don't see how that would split the playerbase since you can choose where you want to play. So if there would only be 2 servers (both FF:on) that would also be splitting the playerbase then?

Things like paying for continents. That is going to split the playerbase up...

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by bjorntju1

But they aren't going to do one server as far as I know. I don't see any problem's with creating a FF:on server and an FF:off server. If the demand for a FF:on server grows higher, they could always add an extra server. Such as 4 FF:on severs and 2 FF:off servers.

I know they aren't, I'm simply speaking of how I would do it, to the extent possible. With that said, all customized servers have to be considered on an issue by issue basis. Some issues might be OK to allow a server variant, others not. Taking friendly fire individually, friendly fire off is not OK regardless of demand, because it's an issue of game balance. FF off means explosives will be spammed, and the game pace will increase beyond what it should.

[bjorntju1]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I know they aren't, I'm simply speaking of how I would do it, to the extent possible. With that said, all customized servers have to be considered on an issue by issue basis. Some issues might be OK to allow a server variant, others not. Taking friendly fire individually, friendly fire off is not OK regardless of demand, because it's an issue of game balance. FF off means explosives will be spammed, and the game pace will increase beyond what it should.

Yes explosives and stuff will be spammed etc. But since you can choose to play on a server with FF off or on. That shouldn't be an issue since you could just play on an FF:on server.

I also don't see how it would split the player base. Since it doesn't cost any money, everyone can play on the server they want. It is not something like a mappack you have to purchase to play on those maps. That does split up the community since not everyone has access to those maps. But since servers are free I don't see a problem with that. And if there are for example only 2 servers, with are both FF:on. Then would that also be splitting up the community? I don't see the difference.

And one big server would be cool. Maybe also that you can fly between continents instead of using warpgates. But we will have to see when/if that happens.

[SgtMAD]

Originally Posted by IronMole

Then the solution to that is; to learn to aim...

FF and a points system needs to be in place to prevent the game just becoming one big spam fest - BF/CoD anyone?

every time we learn something new about PS2,it makes the game seem even more like a clone of BF/CoD,which is sad because we were looking for modern updated clone of PS.

[Aractain]

I was looking for a better game than PS1.

Anyway friendly fire on OR off, make sure greif points mechanic is still on. Its the greif points that stops you spamming not the desire to not hit friendlys. Lets face it most of you don't care about killing the random guy infront of you if you get the enemy kill.

[Hmr85]

FF should be on at all times. This isn't a care bear game. If your that bad at shooting that all your doing is hitting your team mates then maybe you should look at playing a different Genre or a different game completely. I really can't believe all the people on here begging for a watered down version of PS with FF off. Its frankly sickening.

[Felkine]

If FF is off this game is going to be one big zergfest. People will rocket and grenade everything in their sights that moves. Maybe a slightly reduced damage for friendlies will be the best solution.

[IronMole]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

every time we learn something new about PS2,it makes the game seem even more like a clone of BF/CoD,which is sad because we were looking for modern updated clone of PS.

Indeed, it's becoming more disappointing day by day... PS2 is so heavily influenced by BF3 (which is by far from perfect) it's just becoming of these mainstream FPS's, if it wasn't for me having played the original PS I would just think that.