Last Month the Japanese try to retrive this mod a little bit more. They played in the at 2pm CET. At the moment the gametracker,com Server Monitorring is off. Hope soon they turn it on. The ranking seems to work.
Originally Posted by troybob Why 64 players are better than 24?
This is one of those Coke vs. Pepsi type arguments. However, one thing that made Battlefield great was that you didn’t have to have a 64 player server if you didn’t want to have one. You could set the number lower if you wanted. There is nothing stopping a person from creating a 24-slot server in a 64 player-capable game. Why is EA telling us that what used to be an option is now a limitation? It’s like giving us a battlefield of fantastic possibilities and then telling us not to dream big. Oh wait it’s not like that at all. That is what they are telling us. What is worse is they are saying that it is better this way.
Wait….what? How is 24 better than 64? Isn’t 24 better than 12? Isn’t 64 better than 24? I guess not.
Ok now let’s get real for a second. There should be limitations. Wake Island would be stupid with 512 players. The point is that when you design maps, you design them around hardware and network limitations of the day. Even then you try to optimize everything to be able to squeeze more people into the maps. You don’t take pull a number out of the air and say it’s best for teamwork and build your maps on that. That’s setting a limitation arbitrarily and then creating a game around it. And what studies did you do to say that a 24 player limit is perfect for an online game? No more (but maybe less) right? C’mon how dumb do you think we are? Don’t pee on our leg and say it’s raining. I don’t think too many people would be up in arms if it wasn’t for the fact that you didn’t just come out and say “Reason X is why we went with 24 players and it’s a limitation and that’s why we did it but it’s only ten bucks and we’ll think you’ll love itâ€. Instead we got you waving a pendulum in our faces chanting “24 players is the best for online games.â€
Now let’s talk about diversification again, this time with regard to map sizes. All I ask is that you remember this: The most fun maps aren’t necessarily the most played. Everyone is different. Karkand is popular because it is comfy, relatively condensed, and intense at the same time. Zatar is not because it is a challenging landscape. But let’s not forget the instant classics like Battle of Britain (try that with 24 people). Or how about the tank frenzy of Aberdeen/Tampa? Let’s not forget the popularity of 64 player Dragon Valley maps.
The reason the big maps continue to be popular despite the myriad of Karkands out there is because of diversification. The more variables and vehicles you throw into the mix the more fluid the battlefield will be. As the intricacies of the map increase, so do the number of plans of attacks. As the number of attack approaches increase, as does the need to defend multiple areas. This takes more people as you’ll need some to stay behind to foil a flank maneuver while your main push advances. But you know that right?
Give us back the battlefield!
No this isn’t some lame fan-boy battlecry – we literally want you to give us back the battlefield. Stop shooting artillery for us. Stop finding enemies for us. Stop flying the UAV for us. Stop anchoring the ships. You’re giving anyone the ability to airstrike in BF1943? Give us back our battlefield. Let us control the action.
Now let’s clear this first part up real quick: I understand that developers get sad when they put a lot of work into getting a vehicle in the game just for it to sit there and never be used. But let’s also be sure to realize that some vehicles are just more popular than others. I used artillery plenty of times in BF1942 (remember the shore guns?). I also can’t tell you how many times I supported my team by bringing MLRS to bear on 73 easting. Additionally, good gamers know it’s a satisfying feelin’ to hide in a trench, point binoculars at something, and watch a good fellow rain rockets down.
Which brings me to my next point: hiding. Why do you hate for us to hide? The commander gets to scan the entire battlefield? Really? I remember in BF42’s (and DC’s) heyday, one could sneak around the map and pester the other team while only fearing someone just as sneaky is looking for him. Why must you have to ruin that? Why can’t I be a sniper and lie in the grass and not be seen? How many snipers have been found by satellites or UAVs?
Speaking of which – why can’t we fly the UAV? Why not just make a trailer that the player can sit in and fly the UAV around? Give it a horizontal read of about 50 meters. This way the UAV could fly around the base like it does now and have the same effect or it could fly patterns in the map like a squeegee and eventually cover all the ground? Sort of like the patriot/SA-3 of the DC days.
I remember testing DC .8 (never released) there was a map with a KC-135 tanker flying in a circle on the map. The US team had to re-arm and repair from the boom of the tanker not from the airfield. Testers said “why can’t we just fly it and support the jets?†Developers replied “Who is going fly this unarmed hunk of junk that doesn’t transport anything but only rearms and repairs.†Well they were probably right – so I understand some aspects of removing control from the players. But DICE is going too far. Any player can call artillery? That’s one of the worst parts about CoD4. Anyone can get an airstrike. It’s an odd diversion from the fighting to have to worry about being killed because the computer said so (even if it was a human who pointed to the spot on the map).
So please give us back the battlefield. Let us play with the toys. Let us cruise the waters of Midway prowling for carriers. Let us use the unpopular but battle-swaying artillery. Reward teamwork by giving us the opportunity to work as a team. Don’t stifle teamwork by allowing the computer to do the stuff lazy people don’t. Allow a team-oriented side to punish the lonewolves through organization and communication. Do not let a lazy team rain fire because they can push a button.
In conclusion:
I have complete faith in you DICE. The problem seems to be the fact that innovation and “outside the box†thinking stops at the developers’ room. A prime example is mod support. I’m sure the developers know that supporting mods is paramount in the longevity of a game (second only to online gameplay). But the people upstairs don’t know that. They are running a business in a traditional fashion. The five people who bought BF1942 because they played it at my house did so because of Desert Combat. You promised a lot with BF2 and left a real bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths.
Again, it seems that BF1943 may not be for us. It doesn’t appear that it ever was. Please don’t say it is – because we know it is not for us. It’s a quick buck without burning discs. I hope it sells like crap so we don’t have some idiot in a conference room pointing and numbers saying this is the way to go as if he knows what people want. People will be more willing to spend 10 dollars on crap than 50 dollars on something mediocre. Look at the crap on sale at checkout lines. None of it is useful but it is all inexpensive – so it sells.
Please let us game. Please give us back the industry we as consumers and you as developers created. Listen to us. Listen to your thumbs. You’re killing your thumbs if you betray your gaming heritage. A good game has diversity. Diversity spawns creativity. Creativity spawns fun. Fun is gameplay. Snipers suck.
I will close with a butchered quote I heard an EA employee say in an interview before BF1942 came out: “BF1942 is such that it will take 5 minutes to pick up and learn, but a lifetime to masterâ€. Please make the next real BF game like this.