News: Daybreak Games Hit With Layoffs, Matt Higby resigns

[luckyaltone]

Originally Posted by Muldoon

To make something like this possible for player studio would be a huge undertaking, and likely won't happen for this reason.

Agree, even if it could be done within the existing structure i suspect the market for it would be quite small and limited to the hardcore few who want to manage offline matches.

Perhaps a design competition for future map/base changes..?

[Muldoon]

Originally Posted by luckyaltone

Agree, even if it could be done within the existing structure i suspect the market for it would be quite small and limited to the hardcore few who want to manage offline matches.

Perhaps a design competition for future map/base changes..?

The undertaking would be to make our tools usable outside the company, or to make it not be so data dependent. So unless the competition is getting hired to come work for us and make a bunch of bases, I don't see this happening.

[Calista]

Originally Posted by Muldoon

The undertaking would be to make our tools usable outside the company, or to make it not be so data dependent. So unless the competition is getting hired to come work for us and make a bunch of bases, I don't see this happening.

Kinda like when players want to host their own private PS2 servers

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Calista

Kinda like when players want to host their own private PS2 servers

I can understand that tbh, Daybreak own the IP and they have to look after it. I wish they'd make PS1 open source but I'd guess that would be very unlikely.

[Calista]

Originally Posted by ringring

I can understand that tbh, Daybreak own the IP and they have to look after it. I wish they'd make PS1 open source but I'd guess that would be very unlikely.

Oh no, I agree hence the rolling of the eyes. I just can't believe people think they have anything at home that would be even close to running an MMO with advanced tech like PS2.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Originally Posted by Calista

Oh no, I agree hence the rolling of the eyes. I just can't believe people think they have anything at home that would be even close to running an MMO with advanced tech like PS2.

Certainly not PS2, but PS1 is another matter.

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

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Calista

Oh no, I agree hence the rolling of the eyes. I just can't believe people think they have anything at home that would be even close to running an MMO with advanced tech like PS2.

Most likely you are referring to people talking as if they could host a 2000 player server at home. Obviously that is not going to happen. But don't people who have their own Battlefield servers actually rent space from some third party provider anyway?

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.

[Calista]

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.