As discussed at the pub yesterday, EA have announced a new game in the Battlefield franchise, this one will be free to play (advert supported) and styled on TF2.
Other things I've read is the possibility of micro-payments (for new kit, skins etc?). I suppose the big question about that is "will you be able to buy your character better?", and with a free game, is that more acceptable?
URL:
Comments
[Deleted other thread. Must refresh before i post]
Will this let me fall in love with BF all over again?
I am not sure if micropayments is a good thing if it effect game play. It will just turn into Magic - people with lots of cash to spend become really good and crap all over those without the cash. I prefer the BF2142 model where you get more stuff for playing more. That seems to make sense.
If the micropayments are just for fun things, such as skins and non-gameplay related stuff then I'm all for it.
I prefer the BF2142 model where you get more stuff for playing more. That seems to make sense.
This is bad and wrong. Everyone should be on a level playing field. Playing for longer should make you better through experience and practice. Its OK to open up more options, more variety, but not more power. That way lies the world of MMORG's, not the realm of FPS's.
Erm, do you have to pigeon hole BF2142 as purely a FPS? It's a game type of its own design. It's a FPS with 'RPG elements' which allow you to customise the fighter. I don't see how that's bad and wrong. It's just a form of game with a bit of a crossover. It's nice to unlock things by playing lots. It doesn't have to be a story to do that.
Oh hang on, I meant to add that more options is more power in BF2142. The more powerful rocket launcher, sniper rifle, assault rifle, etc. Option is power, it's rarely anything else.
I like the 2142 model as it encourages you to explore all the avenues of play to achieve the awards (and therefore the unlocks.) You limit your progress by sticking to one game and it improves longevity.
Options is one thing, a sniper rifle with 30% more killing power is something else.
I'm utterly against any game model that rewards long time playing with better equipment, or improved ability. More diversity is not by default more power, without the required additional skills to use them. Once you go down that model then you effectively never have a fair fight.
For example, taking the sniper rifles in BF2142 (I'm using these as I have the most experience with them). 2 snipers firing at each other, one has a Zeller (upgrade), one has the default. The Zeller guy has to hit once, the poor bastard with the default POS has it hit twice. At that point skill has little to do with it... If options alone is more power then why are all the higher level weapons more powerful? Surely they should have diversity of use instead?
BF2142 is a FPS game (it ticks all the boxes...real time, first person combat), and the tacked-on progression system is the worst part of it. Its the reason I don't play MMORGS (with the exception of Guild Wars, which uses a very different, extremely low level cap to ensure equal ability throughout most of the game, and instead offers diversity of skills (as opposed to differing levels) as a levelling mechanism. It makes sense in a very real way to me. BF2142 only used the levelling mechanism from MMORGS as a way to promote OCD in players...
Diversity has its limits, though. Diversity is provided with the kits: Assault, Support, Recon, Engineer. That's diversity. For every benefit, there is a detriment. Once you've got all the bases covered, what further diversity is there? The equipment you get makes you more effective in battle. Any additional option allows you to switch to a more suitable form of combat for a given situation. That's a power. If you're running around in corridoors without the Engineer Shotgun, you're at a disadvantage. You're less powerful because you've not got the ideal weapon for the job. Say what you like about playing styles/the Lambert Combine/Baur/ etc, the Support Shotgun is lethal on the titan. In that case, you have diversity but it's more powerful because it is the right weapon for the job. Thus, diversity has its limits.
I still disagree with your tight definition of a FPS. Advancement in 2142 is core to the game, not a tack-on. It's a different direction to FPS, true, but it doesn't make it any less of a FPS just because you don't like it. COD 4 uses a similar system, that's definitely FPS too. The advancement helps people work as a team, in 2142 as you get the most points by working in Squads (my highest score was in a squad by far) and teamwork is what 2142 aims to achieve.
I don't see how levelling produces OCD? Please explain.
Regarding the OCD, how many post have been made re: BF2142 regarding rank?
Compare this to typical conversations about levelling in WoW. There is a notable lack of mention of what has actually happened in game, and more to do with awards given.
Different weapons? Fine. Better, measureably better weapons in the same situation (and again I'm going to go back to the sniper rifles), is not fine. How would it be in a game like UT where you were not allowed to use the flak cannon until you'd played online for 10 hours? Or perhaps you only had a maximum of 80 health, while others were running round with more?
Would you want Mr. Glassjaw No-Flak on your team in CTF? Does the fact that he hasn't yet played x hours of the game mean he should, in addition to having less play experience, also mean he should be limited in kit selection?
The very fact that people were using loopholes to farm ranks indicats that the concept is flawed. Offering a commercial game where you must play for a set period of time before being fully effective is flawed. Favouring time played over actual game skill is flawed in any type of game. That its been tacked on to what is otherwise a decent FPS makes it doubly-so flawed.
I see what you mean about OCD.
Please don't compare UT and BF/COD. They are different games and seek to achieve different things. Each time a round starts in UT, you're on a level playing field. In BF, your progress through the game is taken into account. It's a different model and therefore not comparable. In BF games, experience is much more important than the kit. You're only going to get high scores if you use the kit properly, use the vehicles well and act as a good commander or squad member. In the start of 2142 (and COD4), you rocket up the ranks quickly so that you can specialise in a way that suits your mode of play. Then it's down to skill and experience.
The difference in powers in the weapons is not so great that one person is walking around with a slingshot and another has an orbital bombardment. You make it sound like the new starter has no chance at all, which is clearly rubbish. If that was the case, then you never would have got the Zeller. What about picking up other people's kits? That surely reduces the effect? Thus, it's not skill over time played. Which is a ludicrous statement.
I think your statement about WoW is flawed. When looking into it (and Eve moreso on the behest of Dwain), I found countless places where people had put up images of big events. That seemed to be the thing to do. Rank and standing was not the main thrust to many of the people in the game. If rank was really that important, surely it would not have lasted as long as it has? It needs a story, either specified or derived from the actions of the players to keep its longevity.
What loopholes allow you to farm ranks? Last I checked, there weren't any.
So you're saying its OK at the start of a BF2142 match to have uneven sides?
If its down to skill and experience, why are there weapons that are more powerful...surely thats pointless?
I got the Zeller through very slowly killing people...once I had it my kill rate accelerated, as it was (quite simply) easier to kill people. Not through an improvement in skill, or a change in tactics (I used the same camp points, and my hit ratio did not change massively), simply down to the fact I was using a more lethal weapon. Once I realised this I became somewhat dis-illusioned with the game. I felt no incentive to unlock other classes...I wouldn't be learning to play that class, as the best way to do the unlocking would be to stay as recon, I was far more powerful in that class as I had better equipment.
I haven't played for ages, but people were farming game points by using loopholes with flyers, and the knife/pistol servers could be seen as a way of achieving awards (in fact, to drive home the OCD thing, thats the first point you raised with them, a way of unlocking a badge and the associated points for rank increase).
Removing the link between player rank and equipment unlocks would in no way break the game, it would make it more accessible to newer players, and not make time=better, but rather skill-better, which is how it should be in all games, irrespective of genre.
BF2142 does indeed include player progression. The longer you play, the better your kit will be, up to a limit.
Some games do this, some don't. You don't have to like games that do (which is lucky, as you clearly don't). This is similar to character progression in practically every pen and paper roleplaying game. The main difference is that in p+p roleplaying you generally work with rather than against those progressing with you (not always though...)
Some people like this, some don't. Those who like it may want to play this kind of game. Those who don't may want to play something else....
Giving people kit for playing longer is a way of extending interest in a game. I'm not sure if I'd still be dropping into 2142 on occasion if I had everything unlocked and was just gaining rank. While I do OCD a bit, doing it for a title people ignore doesn't have the draw of doing it for stuff.
When playing on servers, most people tend to be of a rank where they could have unlocked one class pretty much fully. There are some people at lower ranks, progressing quite quickly (all the easy badges are aimed at low rank progression) and some at higher ranks who have more than one kit unlocked. While the sides often aren't perfectly balanced, I don't know how much of that is kit and how much skill. Its still generally not a whitewash, unless you hit a clan on one side.
It is ok to have uneven sides, even by your rationale, the sides will be unfair because you'll have different skill levels. Regardless of unlocks.
You're taking what I say literally in the extreme and thus misquoting. Tut tut, that's not up to your usual high standard of debating. I'm not saying it's all down to skill and experience. It's a mix of both, with the emphasis being of skill and experience. If it wasn't then how would I get to the top of the ranking on a game of 64 players when I'm definitely not the highest ranked on there? Playing predominantly Assault (big scores require kit changes), I can guarantee getting into the top 8 most times (except when playing city maps with Fish, we sucked). I have the kit but I know what to use when and how.
The best way to get new ranks is by the awards system. You can't get the awards by playing one class. You can lie on your front as long as you like but it will take you AGES to unlock everything. So "the best way of unlocking" is not to stay recon but try all the other classes. That maybe the only way you felt you could play the game but it certainly isn't the quickest way of improving.
The unlocking of the badge for knife is nigh on impossible in any other way than a knife server. It's not a loophole. People aren't shooting up the ranks on knife servers. You still have to play for a good long time and be skilled.
How do you unlock without ranks or just blatantly paying for it, by your rationale would be rich-better?
If the emphasis is on skill, why do those who play longer need better kit? By bringing in that game mechanism they invalidate the concept of skill level. Its comes down to exactly the same thing as (to pick an example) haivng a PC that can render shadows in a certain game as to not having a PC that can render shadows (I believe it was Medal of Honour?). At that point skill be-damned, player A has an advantage over player B, and guess who wins? And yes, my argument could be extended to net speeds, individual players hardware/software, and player skill, however all these are outside of the control of a PC games designers control (consoles are a bit different, as you have some constants with hardware). the equipment point, however, lies firmly in the control of the game designer. To purposely use it as an unbalancer in a competitive game is shocking.
My point is that you don't unlock at all. All equipment to all players at the start, then your much vaunted skill and experience will out. To link playtime to quality of equipment quite simply invalidates the entire concept.
And to misquote you again;
Brainwipe said:
That maybe the only way you felt you could play the game but it certainly isn't the quickest way of improving.
So practice is not the best way of improving? How unfortunate...
The amount of unbalance that occurs due to unlock is minimal. You clearly haven't played enough to understand that. Everyone can unlock if they want to play enough. It's just the style of the game. If it really was down to the huge inbalance you think occurs then I'd never be able to get near the top of the leaderboard.
BF2142 tries to pull you out of that comfort zone to get you to try different things. It does that by offering unlocks by practising with different kits, not just the same kit. You still have to practise but to move up the ranks QUICKEST you need to PRACTISE WITH DIFFERENT KITS. It is still much slower to use one kit to unlock everything on all the others.
You just don't like that sort of game, fair enough. It doesn't make it wrong just because you don't like it. I think it extends longevity and gives you a nudge to try things you may not have otherwise.
Your loss.
A quick check of my profile indicates 82 hours of play... not enough time to really understand a game? I suspect most professinoal reviews are conducted on a small percentage of that. However, this argument is not about me (or you), or how long I have played.
Don't get me wrong, as I said, I like the game (please see the 82 hours played bit), and the game mechanics, with the exception of the hacked on equipment progression. I detest how it turns the game into a "I hit this rank" game. For a game designer to on purposely introduce inbalance into a competitive game when it is fully within his control not to is shocking. Practice should bring its own reward, and not need to be supplanted with additional benefits.
Byrnie, regarding your point about OCD for name alone...the Guild Wars OCD progression track is entirely for name alone, and many people still do it...its there as an option, but does not in any way affect game mechanics...
...actually, thats not quite true. They have introduced a small number of skills where name rank does affect skill level, however they are all banned from competitive play, and can only be used in the PvE sections of the game.
More generally, I'm going to hold up GW as an extremely good example of how progression can bring diversity without offering a more experienced player more power directly. Once you hit max level (very early on, moreso in later chapters) everyone is limited to 8 skills, with constant review and tweaking of said skills to make sure that no one build is more powerful than another. The best equipment is available to all for nominal sums. Its a level playing field. Its fair. Skill and teamwork are the deciding factors. Having played it makes the design flaw in BF2142 all the more glaring...
Alright. 82 hours is a very long time. I retract that.
I still think that unlocks are not a flaw nor make the game broken. They're not the deciding factor. The most skilled and experience win. I can't say it in any other way.
Wether the unlock system is a flaw or not is a matter of opinion. I doubt you will convince each other.
On the OCD point, yep, some people will grind away for the slightest of rewards. However, the number of people you keep the interest of is (IMO) directly proportional to the reward you offer. If I didn't unlock stuff I might not have gone back to it recently.
GW is a very well designed and balanced game. However, it doesn't really fit into any one genre. While its balanced, I suspect it loses a lot of people precisely because of the low level cap. People play games for different reasons, and any one game will not have universal appeal...
Which comes back to the original point...if the most skilled and experienced win, why offer improved equipment for longer play? It immediately invalidates any claim of win-by-skill with the simple, and fairly accurate retort "you had better equipment".
In GW, don't you get lower levels fighting higher levels?
If so, how is this different to 2142?
I'm not actually being contrite atm, I'm just trying to understand 'cos I've not played GW.
No, in PVP in GW all players are lvl 20, with access to max damage weapons and armour. A brand new player can create a lvl 20 character immediately. What they wouldn't have is access to all skills, just a core subset of them.
You could choose to send a lower level character in there, but
1) You wouldn't get on any teams
2) You'd be a bit daft in the head
Hence the same power, less diversity situation. As a commercial side you can now buy the access to all skills for about a tenner (for all 4 chapters).
So they get round the problem of more kit vs less kit by just making it impossible to play PVP until you're LVL 20?
As soon as you start the game you can make a PvP only character that is automatically lvl 20. You have 4+ character slots, and can make either a PvE character (start at 1 and go through the PvE game) or a PvP character (starts at lvl 20).
You start with a core set of available skills (from a pool of about a couple of thousand I think, split over 10 classes).
You can unlock skills with either type of character (PvE via missions, ingame money etc, PvP via a points system), and any skill unlocked from any character on the account is available to all PvP characters (or to buy from any skill dude in PvE).
Again, Byrnie is right in the GW is not a proper MMORG, it was designed from the off with the concept of skill over progression in PvP (hence the ability to start at max level for PvP immediately). The only thing prolonged play offers you is access to more skills, and for a fairly nominal fee you can just access all the skills. Then you really are down to "may the best team win".