News: Community Interview with Jon Weathers

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Just a guess, there must be two parts to resource gaining: One that's based on land ownership, which can be reduced based on owning little land, but a second supplemental bonus component based on capturing land and perhaps even per kill...

there should never be a bonus, not a large one anyway for capturing land, its to open to exploits, there should only be resources for holding land.

In warhammer, they gave you renown for capturing an objective, this FAR outweighed the renown you could get from kills, i would only get 1-2 renown for most kills, capturing an objective i think was 250? either way, it was FAR more efficient to just run around, avoid combat and just trade BO's with the enemy than attempt to fight them. people could potentialy sit at a location and switch an objective back and fowards gain 100XP+ resources each time, if they're bad, this is far better XP than killing people...and mark my words, if there is an exploit like this to gain resources or XP fast, people will do it...there are servers in BF3 setup just for farming XP, theres no reason people wont find a nice quiet location on the map and try to pull the same shit.

[Papscal]

Great work Hamma i must say. First interview in a very long time with questions that actually asked the about what we really want to know. And its awesome that Weathers was so responsive to them, very little dodging the question which i expected alot of. More like this please.

PS, Patriots hat...really?

[KTNApollo]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

there should never be a bonus, not a large one anyway for capturing land, its to open to exploits, there should only be resources for holding land.

In warhammer, they gave you renown for capturing an objective, this FAR outweighed the renown you could get from kills, i would only get 1-2 renown for most kills, capturing an objective i think was 250? either way, it was FAR more efficient to just run around, avoid combat and just trade BO's with the enemy than attempt to fight them. people could potential sit at a location and switch an objective back and fowards gain 100XP+ resources each time, if theylre bad this is far better XP than killing people...and make my words, if there is an eploit like this to gain resources or XP fast, people will do it...there are servers in BF3 jsut setup for farming XP, theres no reason people wont find a nice quiet location on the map and try to pull the same shit.

This. In SW:TOR the factions would trade capture points to farm PvP commendations on Ilum. The reward should be for holding land over time rather than just capping.

[Stardouser]

I understand what you're saying about the exploit possibility, but two things:
1. Isn't there supposed to be a maximum resource pool per person?
2. Unlike SW TOR which is an MMORPG where these exploiters might have only come to Ilum to do that, and not to actually engage in real PvP, would people really collaborate to let their enemy mutually build up some resource points?

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I understand what you're saying about the exploit possibility, but two things:
1. Isn't there supposed to be a maximum resource pool per person?
2. Unlike SW TOR which is an MMORPG where these exploiters might have only come to Ilum to do that, and not to actually engage in real PvP, would people really collaborate to let their enemy mutually build up some resource points?

enemy? you mean my free account on my other computer next to me.

[SgtMAD]

I'm telling you right now, the casual player isn't going to be able to rack up enough resources and when they all get on the forums and start complaining about not being able to pull vehs and how unfair it all is, the resources system will be gone.


and i hope Mr. Weathers recovers from whatever they are using medical pot to treat(or maybe not LOL), that dude was friggin baked.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

enemy? you mean my free account on my other computer next to me.

Oh, right, yes...

[SurgeonX]

Originally Posted by xXGumpXX

the feature would be good but not that good as most gamers us Teamspeak or ventrilo to communicate , i would rather use TS than an in-game voip myself !

Originally Posted by GunslingerX

I'd say that's the case only because games have failed at creating a proper in game VOIP. The pros Higby has argued far outweigh any of the cons(cant think of any actually).

Yep, totally agree.
If the in-game VOIP is embedded into the game correctly, and you can interact with players vocally and control that via the UI, then I can't see why you would still use Vent or TS.

I think a lot of the resitance to in-game VOIP is that it has never been done really well before, so people can't envisage how great it could be, and how it can be better than third party voice.

[KTNApollo]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

I'm telling you right now, the casual player isn't going to be able to rack up enough resources and when they all get on the forums and start complaining about not being able to pull vehs and how unfair it all is, the resources system will be gone.

Devs don't give in that easily (even if people think they do).

[SurgeonX]

Originally Posted by Papscal

Great work Hamma i must say. First interview in a very long time with questions that actually asked the about what we really want to know. And its awesome that Weathers was so responsive to them, very little dodging the question which i expected alot of. More like this please.

Just to echo this too.
Great interview.

[LegioX]

Really surprised by the dedication and overall communication between the players/devs are with this game. Maybe i have seen so much crap over my years of gaming ie: bad developer communication, that i have been getting use to it?

[sylphaen]

Good interview ! I loved how hard both Hamma and Jon were trying to avoid saying the word beta.


I love the contextual VOIP concept. Jon, please, if you read this, look if it's possible to make VOIP activate when entering/exiting vehicles. Dynamic chat channels for vehicle crews was the hardest behavior to set-up over teamspeak/ventrilo. When the fights get heavy and everyone start gunning for the first vehicles that respawn instead of their assigned teammate, there is no time to fight with the VOIP UI.

Another idea for platoon leaders: on the map menu, allow interaction with the map by selecting platoon players with the mouse and do stuff like VOIP chat with selected players.

Drag'n drop, ctrl, alt, keyboard shortcuts, etc... The easier it is to interact with the map, the more enjoyable and fluid the command experience will be.

About waypoints, allowing to add timers/countdowns would be nice to improve coordination too.

[DirtyBird]

Originally Posted by Dreamcast

Im pretty sure his name will light up knowing who is talking to you

Well I expect it probably will but its yet to be seen.
Your channel would want to be prominent on your screen to get your attention during a battle. Maybe they'll even have the actual player name above the players head flash, as well as an indicator on the mini map.

In PS1 we would use TS or maybe it was Roger Wilco back then.
During major events we'd split the squads into their own channels and have hot keys so squad leaders could talk to each other. Nothing worse than umpteen squads with different directives all giving instructions over the same channel.

So I see the need for decent communications and most outfits will already provide it and probably find it hard to wean themselves off it.
You are not likely to ditch your current comms unless there is greater benefit from the one provided in game.

For those not having an outfit or just casual it will certainly beat typing everything.

[SgtMAD]

Originally Posted by KTNApollo

Devs don't give in that easily (even if people think they do).

SOE is famous for caving in,I watched them do it over and over again in PS

[Bags]

Yeah, but they fired a lot of the original PS1 devs didn't they?