View Full Version : MMOTFPS??
FatNinjaKid
May 26 2005, 14:03
Is OFP2 going to be a MMOTFPS? ("massively-multiplayer online tactical first person shooter" http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif )
Here (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~ww2ec/content.php?content.2) @<hidden> it says:
Quote[/b] ]There is supposed to be a full-scale war going on around the map. To achieve this Bohemia has implemented a way of having every action on the map recorded. If a helicopter flies overhead, then it is on it's way to perform an action. It is either dropping off or picking up troops or it is on it's way to attack an enemy position. Everything in the game will have it's own goals and priorities to handle. There will even be civilians living and going to work in the cities.
Why would BIS undertake such efforts if not for the purpose of having a very very LARGE number of players on the same map???
i think every player will be a plutoon commander, 40 booth x 50 players........ http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
will be really nice http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
monty67t
May 26 2005, 15:06
It would be a pretty cool feature if there was a full scale war going on and each player had it's own objective to accomplish. For example, player 1 might be in charge of an engineer squad who's job is to destroy a vital bridge, but they cannot do that job until player 2 and his flight of Apaches has taken out the armor threat around the bridge. Then player 3 has a special operations unit that is going to HALO jump in behind enemy lines and "paint" mobile scud launchers for player 4 to drop laser guided bombs on from his F/A-18. The possiblities are endless. It would be a CooP heaven.
Monty
BlackScorpion
May 26 2005, 16:23
I want to be the SF transport helo pilot...
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
Dunno how the SF guys would like the ride though.
Anyways, rather interesting... Hmmm... Looking forward to it!
We can do that as soon as we get JP with AA though http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Morbid Angel
May 26 2005, 16:41
Well about the mmo thingy ... mmos are subscription based games which cost the devs a LOT of money to maintain those huge servers that can handle thousands of ppl online at the same time.
While the next BIS game might be able to handle 64 players, maybe 128 like JO (doubtful but still), its hardly a mmo. PLUS its never gonna be a persistant world anyways ... cause that is the whole idea of the mmo concept.
On the other hand tho - a round in this next BIS game might take a couple hours maybe, which is gonna make for some nice coop experience like previous posters said. Can't wait.
Victor_S.
May 26 2005, 16:44
no I dont think it has to have a ton of people, but each person is in command of a squad or multiple squads. So maybe 32 people and x10 ai. That would make a great multiplayer game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
TwentyFourSeven
May 26 2005, 17:07
be the death of it and exclusive if it was a sub fee based
Heatseeker
May 26 2005, 20:29
no I dont think it has to have a ton of people, but each person is in command of a squad or multiple squads. So maybe 32 people and x10 ai. That would make a great multiplayer game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Well, i prefer player only squads, because thats the point of MP, competition betwean gamers, not a.i. like in brothers in arms but im sure the possabilities will be big enough to please everyone http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .
sidhellfire
May 26 2005, 20:51
Unfortunally MMOFPS are impossible due of connection limitations :/
I've seen only MMORPG's, MMORTS (only one - shattered galaxy, that is a combinatin of rpg and rts at all)
btw. it would be so interesting to see something like commandos, but as massive multiplayer. 1 player - 1 character. 1 shot - 1 kill...
Anyway it has nothing to the thread here. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
I'll keep dreaming.
Antichrist
May 27 2005, 00:05
Yeah, that's my dream as well. When I first played PlanetSide I immediately thought how awesome it would be to have the same kind of persistant world on Everon for example. Class based gameplay, so machine gunner will never be able to drive a tank unless he trains the necessary skill. Capturing bases, holding them, directing artillery strikes. With around 500-1000 people on the server (read island) it will be so awesome. Unfortunately it is impossible with current technology.
Heatseeker
May 27 2005, 00:12
Yeah, that's my dream as well. When I first played PlanetSide I immediately thought how awesome it would be to have the same kind of persistant world on Everon for example. Class based gameplay, so machine gunner will never be able to drive a tank unless he trains the necessary skill. Capturing bases, holding them, directing artillery strikes. With around 500-1000 people on the server (read island) it will be so awesome. Unfortunately it is impossible with current technology.
Ah! 30 minuts and your bored of all the chaos and lack of comunication, 30/50 or even much less well known, friendly players and you got 2 hours of gameplay fun guarantied http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif .
Well there may be other ways than persistant game worlds and developer run servers.
Some years back i had a bit of talk about that in the ofp2 multiplayer suggestions thread and some people agreed that maybe an option to put servers in a grid to distribute the workload to multiple pc's might improve MP performance while maintaining game flexibilety.
These server grids would be created by 3rd party groups like gamers and clans ,and wouldn't probably involve that many servers.Basicly the server load could be distributed thus allowing more people to play the same game session online depending the number of servers of the grid ,or array.
But Ofp wouldn't be default need multiple servers to run an mp game ,it would be up to the third party how many server he wants for his specific game.
I don't think such an option wouldn't be ultimatly that hard to implement ,IMO it would deffinatly be a very worthwile feature ,but afcourse it has it's limitations.Realisticly noone in the Flashpoint is going to create hughe grids due to the sheer costs ,but you would have a larger number of servers that distribute the server load over 2 or 3 servers.Neither would the increase of the extra server mean an increase of performance in the same quantity as the one delivered by the first server ,but it would be noticable ,and a grid of 3 seververs might alow something between 100 and 200 players depending on the netcode and base mp performance of the game.
Such a system IMO offers most flexibilety to player demands in player numbers for an MP session.
Atleast i like the fact that BIS fullfilled atleast one of my suggestions for the game ,though i doubt that they duid it for me personally http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif ,in the sense that i wanted to have more life and crowd in the game ,i always had the opinion that Ofp allowed to few objects and people on a game compared to the space it offers.These dynamic campaigns look a wonderfull way to me to give Ofp layers the impression that the island is full of life.
Antichrist
May 27 2005, 04:44
Ah! 30 minuts and your bored of all the chaos and lack of comunication, 30/50 or even much less well known, friendly players and you got 2 hours of gameplay fun guarantied http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif .
I don't think so. I actually think that chaotic gameplay and lack of any teamwork will make it much more exciting and engaging experience. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
funnyguy1
May 27 2005, 05:30
Ah! 30 minuts and your bored of all the chaos and lack of comunication, 30/50 or even much less well known, friendly players and you got 2 hours of gameplay fun guarantied http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif .
I don't think so. I actually think that chaotic gameplay and lack of any teamwork will make it much more exciting and engaging experience. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
lol
That`s the reason, I don`t want It to be so called MMOTFPS( http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif ).
I want coops like:
spec ops (just a few guys) vs AI
and bunch of missions like mapfact`s laves in wind (or something like that)
When It comes to the players number on the server, I don`t want It to be uber battlefield with thousands of players...
BF2 comes to mind....It would be great, but it could turn into a nightmare...All those CS guys on this server, no communication at all, runing and shooting on each other...
Back to this mission from mapfact. If you are the main commander, and you`re coordinating those other 2/3 squads.
Who will listen to you in mp?
The action should be considered before the game starts, but then, who will watch the disscusion on the chatroom when some freaks from the old ofp community are talking about the strategy....
I `m just worrying about the MMOTFPS thingy. Large battlefield with large number of players, yeah...but there aren`t only technical limitations. Think about it.
Eventually, they could do something like that. We would gonna play our more `private` coop games, and wait till those cs idiots get borred, and than play mp on large scale http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
Heatseeker
May 27 2005, 05:54
I say limit vehicals to specific classes like pilots, armor crew members and stuff like that, otherwise it will be the same nightmare all over again, plus everyone will be rushing to grab the vehicals and infantry will suck, everyone will just pick a law launcher, a sniper rifle, grab a cobra... i say screw that crap and give us more realistic MP gameplay, we need a new game concept that gives "simulation" its justice, not BF/JO arcade stuff... i really hope vehicals wont take such an important role in the game and that their performance will also depend on infantry ground forces and their capability to paint targets and radio map coordinates for bombing, stuff like that... otherwise the game might turn out to play better without them damn vehicals http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif .
FatNinjaKid
May 27 2005, 07:24
Right, I played Joint Operations with 150 ppl on one server and let me tell you: it sucks!
Everybody is running around like decapitated chicken. There are no tactics, no team work and there is absolutely nothing you as a single player can do to influence the outcome of the game. A large number of players is no guarantee for a good game. Personally I too would prefer small servers with up to 32 player but with lots of a.i. units.
On the other hand it would be understandable if BIS should go for a "pay to play" strategy since we all have enjoyed their stuff for thousands of hours without essentially having to pay for it. If they can think of a way to charge for this prolonged gaming experience they probably will. It should not surprise anyone. That is what companies do.
LtUlrich
May 27 2005, 08:11
In regards to Apollo's ideas on 'Server Grids'...
This idea could allow small servers on cablemodems to host 4-8 local, low-ping players, and could take part in multiprocessing as well, provided that the master sync server isn't too far off.
Bioware's Neverwinter Nights allows for server 'porting', which means that you can place a teleport in your map on your server that will then send the player, character and inventory and all, to a teleport on some other server someplace. This is a distributed, user owned-and-run (on cablemodems at that) MMORPG that's totally free.
Once JIP can be implimented, this seems almost feasible for OFP, does it not?
EDIT: I must add that I never actually saw this work; Bioware quickly became disgustingly moneyhungry and I didn't feel like paying for the other 2/3 of a game I had already spent a good handful on.
Quote[/b] ]Right, I played Joint Operations with 150 ppl on one server and let me tell you: it sucks!
Don't compare Ofp to JO. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
Quote[/b] ]I `m just worrying about the MMOTFPS thingy. Large battlefield with large number of players, yeah...but there aren`t only technical limitations. Think about it.
But having a flexible server grid system is like having a JIP option ,it's handy for those who want it and it can be kinda turned of for those wo rather not have it.A server grid system might allow a lot more players on a server ,but it's still possible to put a limited server online wich host games with a server limit of for ex. 16 player.Basicly it's to the server admins own discretion.And given the costs of maintaining only 1 server already i figure there would still be a lot of "1 server" servers.But atleast that would be a flexible system of expanding a server depending on player needs.
There is a segment of players of the Ofp kinda games that would like the possibilety to play the game with considerably more people.
Games like WW2 online have a fair fanbase even for a MMOG wich costs a fair bit in monthly fee and wich isn't all that great graphicly.If Ofp could create a Server grid option it would make it kinda a semi MMOG ,it would never have a server like the WW2online mainfarme ,instead of thousands of players probably only a few hundreds could maximaly play ,but that would be a high number for the normal FPS game's out there ,it would be free compared to WW2online ,and it would suit IMO the Scale of OFP as we fight over large but not gigantic maps like WW2online.
Quote[/b] ]On the other hand it would be understandable if BIS should go for a "pay to play" strategy since we all have enjoyed their stuff for thousands of hours without essentially having to pay for it. If they can think of a way to charge for this prolonged gaming experience they probably will. It should not surprise anyone. That is what companies do.
Implementing a "pay to play" system would keep a large mass of players of actually buying the game probably ,thus would hurt sales.
FatNinjaKid
May 27 2005, 17:40
Implementing a "pay to play" system would keep a large mass of players of actually buying the game probably ,thus would hurt sales.
And profit too...? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif It would be foolish for BIS not to consider "pay to play" with such a loyal fan base and all. Hey, I wouldnt like it just as much as you, but I have to admit I would probably pay. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
Morbid Angel
May 27 2005, 18:04
I can honestly tell that I had a blast playing World War 2 Online (it got old plus it lost many players so I lost interest finally) ... and now this is something I know is not gonna happen - but IF BIS pulled a stunt and made a MMO out of their engine, I would subscribe for damn sure.
Other than that I will be happily enjoying the mp part of "Game 2" when its out ^^
Ah! 30 minuts and your bored of all the chaos and lack of comunication, 30/50 or even much less well known, friendly players and you got 2 hours of gameplay fun guarantied http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif .
I don't think so. I actually think that chaotic gameplay and lack of any teamwork will make it much more exciting and engaging experience. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
yes, watching noobs tked someone or being killed by his own stupidy is an exciting entertainment http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Victor_S.
May 28 2005, 05:47
"Pay to Play" is evil. I have nothing more to say than that...
sidhellfire
May 28 2005, 07:19
Pay to play will at least scare away customers from East Europe. Noone here wiling to pay regular money for it i won't either. I had to cut off phone, everything that connects me to the world is internet now, and how would look p2p game? Most of players saved some money, and when they had them much enought - they have bought product. Actually it's easier to keep own server online instead of paying 1euro per each player which plays on it.
And forming huge battles would be extreamly fun, even with "noobs". Of course the number of them may be easly lowerd by few suggested server variables.
hmm let's think about thoose variables:
1. only players with clans may apply to the big battle (not a great idea i know)
2. players in order to enter must form a group of min. 4 players, or must push a battle commander to press "allow" button ;-) (nicer)
3. Account system which count's points on a player. ( i believe everything will have cd-key mangament system, like steam, or id software's ones) Only players with let's say min 10 battles after them, and got at least 10x more kills than teamkills. (best i think)
Morbid Angel
May 28 2005, 07:22
"Pay to Play" is evil. I have nothing more to say than that...
No not really ... you have to understand that companies which make mmos have nutter expenses maintaining their servers ... PLUS they have rather big teams to add new content constantly ... making this game their only job. So basically, they HAVE to charge a monthly fee just to keep going. I know I know there are games like Guild Wars coming which dun cost monthly but only the price for the retail box, but there, you dun get addon stuff for free but for the price of a regular addon box.
So same story basically.
And again, if a tactical shooter comes out which is like OFP ... but mmo... I am there in an instant!
bravo 6
May 28 2005, 08:40
That`s the reason, I don`t want It to be so called MMOTFPS( http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif ).
I want coops like:
spec ops (just a few guys) vs AI
and bunch of missions like mapfact`s laves in wind (or something like that)
When It comes to the players number on the server, I don`t want It to be uber battlefield with thousands of players...
BF2 comes to mind....It would be great, but it could turn into a nightmare...All those CS guys on this server, no communication at all, runing and shooting on each other...
I agree.
but there will be Big coop missions VS AIs with lots players (it just will). I wounder if we will have lag due to the extream action in map!
imagine a coop Vs AI with 40 people (if possible), there must be lots enemys in map so it can fullfill the pleasure of those 40 players.
As a mission maker i was/am (for some servers), i would like to know from the OFP2* Creators how much can i count on it.
will we have lag (graphic & connection lag) if lots units are implemented in a 40/60 players mission? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Go Team! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
(*) might have diff name, arf! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
Heatseeker
May 28 2005, 19:40
I believe that if you gather 40 people at a server it would be a waste to put them all shooting a.i. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif , i think coops are more interesting, organised and fun with smaller groups like 10, behiond that it problably gets too messy but a 20 vs 20 objective based adversarial game can be really good (objective based and realistic, not cti), i think one way to improve gameplay would be to split players in 5/6 man fireteams because when a bunch of guys stick close/together their more likely to be seen, naded and sniped one by one http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif .
i remembered that sometime ago Zeus did tried to get a 100 men Coop game work, and result in no choose but to kick high pingers for the 100 ppl run http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
You could have coops where you have a squad or two of real people against AI with a couple of real commanders giving orders according to intel (sightings, satellite views, spies).
FWIW, there is an MMOFPS out there - Planetside (http://www.planetside.com) - in which I've met many an OpFlash player. You get big field battles, tanks, aircraft, etc in which its not unusual to have 200 people all fighting in the same base-battle.
blackdog~
May 31 2005, 13:38
Up to 32 players is fine, but you must remember that it would more than likely be economically unfeasible for most server admins to pay for something that could support upwards of 64 players...
Is OFP2 going to be a MMOTFPS? ("massively-multiplayer online tactical first person shooter" http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif )
Here (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~ww2ec/content.php?content.2) @<hidden> it says:
Quote[/b] ]There is supposed to be a full-scale war going on around the map. To achieve this Bohemia has implemented a way of having every action on the map recorded. If a helicopter flies overhead, then it is on it's way to perform an action. It is either dropping off or picking up troops or it is on it's way to attack an enemy position. Everything in the game will have it's own goals and priorities to handle. There will even be civilians living and going to work in the cities.
Why would BIS undertake such efforts if not for the purpose of having a very very LARGE number of players on the same map???
Ain't that just the SP campaign?
Well i'm sticking to my guns.
No pure MMOG plz where one has to pay monthly fee's ,and i think BIS wouldn't go MMOG anyway.But plz expand the amount of players that can compete in MP as much as possible.
Therefore my proposition of a server grid option ,though i don't know how easy it would be to implement it ,and how much additional performance a second server could offer ,it all depends on how service's can be spread among servers and how certain servers could be specialized for a certain task.I figure the bottleneck of current MP gaming limit's is in the amount of net connections a server can handle that is already performing dedicated game service's ,then a conection server might actually increase performance a lot depending on certain factor's ,like network packet sizes and amounts over lan ,and multiple connection servers even more ,but in the end that would be limited also eventually by the performance of the dedicated server.
In the end that is what MMOG's do ,spread workload over multiple servers ,however MMOG's aim for player numbers in the thousands and game enviroments sometimes expantionally larger than thos of OFP ,thus they need a lot of servers to create that game world for wich then they have to charge the players for the servers.
Allowing customizable server grids would offer a new system to larger online games ,not a MMOG but a game with the posibilety to allow more players online than any other NON-MMOG MP FPS game out there withought additional server costs.Players would create and support the semi large server grids ,not BIS ,so it's no additional costs for them ,the can offer a semi MMOG withought having to charge their fanbase for servers ,thus not hurting sale's.the supportable players would be only in the 100's ,not in the thousands ,but for Ofp this is perfect.
IMO that would give the sequal of OFP1 another substantial advantage over it's competitors ,and it would very much fit it's scale to allow 200 players or more (depending on private server grids) on an Ofp map.
Also ,IMO ,if BIS wants to go further in creating a realistic war platform ,then increasing the number of unit's on map is a must ,afterall most opperations in RL easily consists of a few hundreds of combatants.Their dynamic SP campaign is a good direction to that goal.
IMO allowing a customizable server grid system would offer OFP players flexibilety in that area that is otherwise comon for OFP on many other area's ,one of OFP's major strenghts is it's flexibilety.
I really hope i can reach BIS with this idea ,it doesn't have to be implemented and i can understand when it wouldn't be technicly feasable ,but i would really like BIS it's feedback on this proposition ,as to know where i stand with this.Such a server system would really be my most preffered addition to Ofp.
I really hope i can reach BIS with this idea
By posting such thoughts on the forums you are reaching BIS, there can of course be no guarantee that you will receive feedback or even that any/all suggested ideas will be implemented but we see everything http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
I really hope i can reach BIS with this idea
By posting such thoughts on the forums you are reaching BIS, there can of course be no guarantee that you will receive feedback or even that any/all suggested ideas will be implemented but we see everything http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
I was just scared that the suggestion might go unnoticed ,
what you said was all i needed to know. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
From here on ,ill see if the thought was technicly/commercially feasible if BIS implements it ,if not then i know BIS had it's commercial/technical reasons not to implement it ,and i trust BIS in their judgement. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
DBR_ONIX
Jun 1 2005, 19:22
I really hope OFP2 isn't a MMOFPS type game.. If it is, no addons..
You can't make 10000 people download an addon if someone gets it. The way it is just now is okay, give it JIP, better netcode (Support for lots of players on dedicated server), and you can make a Semi-MMOFPS game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
But if it had loads of people on one server, like Planetside, you couldn't use addons in MP, and that wouldnt be good..
But, if you had support for large ammounts of players, you could run a MMO server the same as a normal server, just with lots of bandwidth
Yes I kinda repeated that, but I thought it was important enough to do so http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
- Ben
Sputnik Monroe
Jun 4 2005, 16:23
Why do you all think a persistent dynamic campaign has to be a pay MMO type game?
Have any of you heard of Longbow, Falcon 4.0, Enemy Engaged, and Total air war? Heck back in the 486 33mhz days we had online persistent campaigns with Falcon 3, A10, and Mig 29 in which all three games could play together online in a persistent dynamic campaign.
Dynamic persistent campaigns aren't a new thing that just came to be all the sudden. It's a lost idea from the golden age of simulations that has been recently rediscovered after a decades absence filled with ID, Unreal, and half life junk.
Think of computer gaming 15 years ago as the height the Roman Empire. Then the barbarians came and caused the fall of civilization and the onset of the dark ages (doom and half life). Now it's the renaissance and lost knowledge is being rediscovered, relearned and built upon.
Basically think of Maruk and Suma as Davinci and Michelangelo.
ninjatek
Aug 12 2005, 04:16
PlanetSide is still the most kick ass MMOFPS, but it is dated and a there is a huge void for a modern warfare AND modern engine MMOFPS.
Things I noticed comparing JO to PlanetSide. Both have a mixture of solo players, but PlanetSide utlized guilds which actually helped organize a lot of those unorganized players. In JO people just join a game and run around doing there own thing, maybe a few would coop tactically while using VOIP. In PS there was a lot more cordination for those in guilds, using VOIP or not. Allowing players to form squads and platoons also helps coordinate them better especially when given devices like in PS where squad leaders could mark waypoints that made it simple for those in the group to know what the actual target is and where. This could easily be done in Game 2 as well, with or without MMO aspect, and highly recommend it being added if the devs haven't already.
therealFerox
Aug 13 2005, 00:34
what BIS means is that like in rpgs such as morrowind, or the new one oblivion, on the map there will be lots of soldiers going about doing whatever they do and it would simulate a full theater war that you would be a part in. The npcs may have ended up being engaged at city X, and your on patrol somewhere, then all of a sudden orders come in to your platoon that is like " assist platoon y at city x, and clear it out." They war would go on and probably end eventually, even if you just decided to sit in the mess hall for days.
we are not talking like ww2ol where you would have a map 1/2 size of real europe and thousands of players on at one time. You will be lucky to see 100 person servers when ofp2 is released.
ninjatek
Aug 14 2005, 00:23
I could live with at least 64 player support.
64 is enough imo, no need for more slots.
Hmmm. lets see.. Possibly up to 64 players. JIP. There are reasonably priced, scaleable, parallel servers for rent with big pipes. And remember the tenacity and raw creative power of the community.
Ok, maybe not MMOFPS, but definatly VLMOFPS (very large multiplayer online FPS) seems emminently probable. *Especially if BIS gives us a few net tools or just hooks for our code.* http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif
whisper
Aug 25 2005, 09:16
Planetside fan here! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
And it doesn't mean complete chaos, in fact I've seen in PS some of the most organized things ever. Massive infantry drops on ennemy held grounds, tank warfare with support squad running around for repair, rearms, etc...
It's absolutely not realistic, has many flaws and bugs, but as it is the only 1 bare WWIIOL available, it's still enjoyable.
Now, should it be done for future BIS product? I don't think BIS should center it on this. Give us tools for us to build something approaching, why not. Centering multiplayer part of the game on being massive, no.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.