Kitten:
Understood Kitten but if it was like BF1942, it would be just like every other multiplayer game. A simple shoot out at the OK Corral(sp?) . I also feel its do-able and it would be too much for those unwilling to make the effort. The resulting revolution in genre I think is worth it all. Not too mention this next-step in multilayer gaming is being done already in Dungeons & Dragons type RPGs and a WWII simulator right now. You see to me, simple small scale battles with repeated spawns(without consequence), limited space and single-minded intentions are nothing more than a simplistic, tactically and strategically insulting, perversion of combat and war. Its just a prolonged skirmish in a bottle! Now that isnt an insult to the folks who makes this game, its just the nature of teh genre. One that I accepted for so long until I saw and realized that there is something more that is missing. I've done the mulitpayer battle thing since Rainbow 6 when it was the pinnicale of this revolutionary genre...but its getting old.
I begin to realize that there is more to war, combat, etc than just the fight. The fight is the final piece in a tapestry thats been building up to the engagement. Ideally, those things done before the engagment have almost or more to do with the outcome then the men and machines themselves. These are some of things that are missing and need inclusion in order to have a more comprehensive and satisfying battle.
First thing, war isnt fighting 100% of the time. In current games everybody is in combat mode 100%, there are no lulls, no opportunity to drop one's guard. That makes real surprise attacks, ambushes, etc impossible. My idea creates situtations that draws one attention from combat. Yes, the threat of hostilities does exhist in the back of your head, but there is a differnece between having your gun holstered knowing there is a threat, compared to walking around with your rifle shouldered 100% of the time looking for your next target. In fact Ive been thinking about the shields. Im thinking within my game idea there has to be a reason to keep people from having their shield up all time(besides it being an act of hostilty), shields are never up 100% of the time in Star Trek episodes unless under threat.
Second, Id like damage to and destroyed vesels to matter. Even if people can repeatly spawn new ones(with consequnces), the idea that I can affect the players I encounter to the point where they fear the consequences of their own losses means:
* players will think twice about wasting ones ships irresponsibly
* the intrinsic desire to live basically becomes attrition of units as players conceed to stronger and more coordinated forces, thus going to other areas or coordinating a suitable counter-attack
* for the first time you'll see real tactical retreats, value of the area/situtation, etc and liklihood of losses will determine the neccessity to stay and fight. Sometimes its better to retreat, repair and re-group in order to live another day so that one can take back what was lost and/or crush those who had the upper-hand on you.
* one's desire for survival will generate more team oriented and coordinated operations
* Finally the elimination of the "bloodlust" type gameplay we've been cursed with! War is not about killing, war is about attaining goals...it just so happens killing is often required. One who stands over the fallen to insure his death is ignoring his reason for being there anyway, it also opens you up for attack by his commrade. Instead, elimnate your foe as a threat and continue with the mission at hand.
Now I do realize my idea is complex and it does require a lot. Because of this Ive come accept that some stuff may have to be left out, but the concept of a large inter-linked network of systems, resource allocation, XP accumilation and research/exploration must stay. These are the basis of the experience with neutral parties, merchant and frieghter vessels being expendable.
Topic: I love the series, but something is still missing. (Read 11857 times)