Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Line for stalking eMa, begins here.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
2015-03-05, 07:48 AM | [Ignore Me] #2 | |||
Captain
|
RELEASE DA CODE SOE/DAYSOMETHING! Or heck, sell it to us for a few bucks, it's not like you'll ever make more than that from it. :J |
|||
|
2015-03-05, 08:07 AM | [Ignore Me] #3 | |||
Colonel
|
Now, a 2000 player server would cost huge money, but it wouldn't be so ridiculous to have 64-128 player servers. This game has long been polluted by deathmatch focus gameplay even as it tries to claim a territorial focus in name. Why not embrace that, take it to the next level, and break up the game into servers like that (READ the last paragraph before you panic)? They could, for example, carve out mini-maps for 64-128, such as Crossroads/Crown/TI Alloys (and maybe one or two of the other close bases). They could make pure deathmatch modes, conquest-ish modes, and so on. But why, you ask? Well if people are going to just play it as a deathmatch, why not accommodate them with the smaller round-based server structure, and charge rental fees for it? Just like in BF your rank and unlocks follow you to any server, so could the same thing happen for PS2 in this system. What are some reasons that individual players would choose to do their deathmatching on a 64-128 server? 1. Ability to find closer servers for ping purposes 2. Server owner/renter can provide a more immediate cheat response (though on the flip side, just like BF has, you'd have some power trip owners who kick/ban for the most trivial or even unfair things) 3. Such servers would be round-based instead of persistent - many players want this (I don't, but 95% of the fights I see are played like a deathmatch anyway despite how the game is designed, so I'm practically getting it anyway except there aren't formal rounds built into the game). 4. Easier to play with the same small group of players Obviously there would be drawbacks to work out but basically, this game has long been a deathmatch in all but name. Why not take advantage of it, especially if server rental fees are going to pay for it? Might even attract new players. And more importantly...the main servers would still exist, but with people able to more formally go to 64-128 player servers for their deathmatching, hopefully those who do go on the main servers will be playing to win. Right now, except in highly organized outfit scenarios, most people play to cert farm. That kind of play does not take advantage of a big territorial control map. So on weeknights, a player might log in, play 3-4 20 minute rounds on a good ping server, but on weekends logs into the main servers to participate in organized ops. Last edited by Stardouser; 2015-03-05 at 08:10 AM. |
|||
|
2015-03-05, 08:26 AM | [Ignore Me] #4 | ||
Second Lieutenant
|
Here is a basic diagram of an MMO.
http://mirrors.fom.nexeontech.com/v5.jpg Battlefield is not an MMO, it is an instanced MOG and as such it is not required to maintain a high degree of persistence. Anyway, about the only way PS2 could do it is provision out game servers and host them in proximity to rest of the servers in the farm and perhaps charge players money to use them. I imagine that would be an expensive endeavor. Last edited by Calista; 2015-03-05 at 08:28 AM. |
||
|
2015-03-05, 08:36 AM | [Ignore Me] #5 | |||
Colonel
|
Also, why can't these cut-down servers be done same as Battlefield and located offsite/around the world where players are? Do Battlefield server owners not actually pay enough to make that system work? Last edited by Stardouser; 2015-03-05 at 08:39 AM. |
|||
|
2015-03-05, 08:45 AM | [Ignore Me] #6 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
They don't have very many players in the PS4 version and already players are complaining about frame rates when in large battles. From what I have been reading these "large" battles aren't close to what the PC sees so I don't know how this is going to turn out. Maybe this hex instancing model would work better for consoles but it would redefine the gameplay substantially. |
|||
|
2015-03-05, 09:17 AM | [Ignore Me] #8 | ||
Colonel
|
I can only assume you disagree; surely you don't think persistence fulfills its purpose simply by existing? It needs to exist as an underlying mechanic to make other mechanics work well. Just because a fight can stop dead cold and territory will sit as it was until others come back doesn't mean much. It is regularly undermined by alerts when the winner is granted huge areas they didn't hold and didn't have to fight for. It is regularly cheapened by base design, where the winner between large forces is the one that doesn't have to log for bed.
No, persistence is an underlying thing that makes what lies above it better. But what lies above it in this game remains undone. No attrition mechanics, poor layout, so on. |
||
|
2015-03-05, 10:43 AM | [Ignore Me] #9 | |||
Contributor General
|
|
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|