I was playing the Beta for Battlefield 3 last night when an idea struck me. I think this idea could be implemented in such a way as to revolutionize the tactical squad-based shooter: This mode would be a new version of Battlefield's rush mode (with varied objectives)but with one player on each side in the role of commander. The commander would deploy on the battlefield as a cursor(a la 343 Guiltyspark in Halo's theatre mode) with the ability to leave colored waypoints (visible to all members of his team) on a live top-down overview of the map. The commander would also have radio contact with the leaders of each squad who would then pass his orders down to their men. ex: Commander: "Charlie Squad- take defensive positions on the green waypoint." Squad leader then relays the message and has his men follow the order. I think it would make for an excellent game mode. A cross between fps and rts, and a way to coordinate team actions and keep the action organized. The game would, of course, keep a set of stats for play time as the commander, too. It would be an extremely cooperative mode. Also, when you die as a soldier, neither you nor any of your squad mates can respawn until the whole squad needs to respawn. The game would still run on tickets, but they would be squad tickets instead of individual tickets. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ _Original post and poll results below_______| Would you play a multiplayer hame where if you die you cannot play again for between 15- 30 minutes? The reasoning behind this question is this: the reason I think multiplayer games like CoD/Battlefield are ridiculous is because no one cares about dying- you run around like a moron, racking up kills and every time you die, 3 seconds later you're back in it. I would like to see a game where players are PUNISHED for dying. A game that makes the player AFRAID to die, even. What I would like to see is a multiplayer game with a focus more on completing the mission and getting out alive rather than saying "**** you, teamwork! I cain't have ppl steelin' mah killz!" You'll notice the poll is split between console and PC gamers- I'm trying to see if: 1. anyone would go for this, and 2. if this is more of a console or a PC gamer prospect. ___________________________________________________ Poll results: Would you play a MP shooter where you had a 15-30 min wait every time you died? PC Yes: 8 votes, 12% PC No: 30 votes, 43% Console Yes: 2 votes, 3% Console No: 29 votes, 42%
If you make people wait 15+ minutes after they die than it becomes a complete stale mate where everyone is too afriad to shoot their gun or move around the map because they don't want to wait.
I like your idea but I think you're going about it the wrong way. Dying itself shouldn't be punished. Everybody dies. So even the good players would get that punishment which is bad. I think if you die, your kill count should go down. That way even if you get a lot of kills, if you died a lot, it wouldn't matter.
I see what you're getting at, but if that game ever came into existence, it'd have to be one of the worst ever created.
Didn't Gears 1 MP have something similar? Warzone I think. You only had one life and if you died, had to sit out until the end of the round. Which would only last a couple of minutes but it still made you wary about rushing in, all guns blazing.
I like your idea but I think you're going about it the wrong way. Dying itself shouldn't be punished. Everybody dies. So even the good players would get that punishment which is bad. I think if you die, your kill count should go down. That way even if you get a lot of kills, if you died a lot, it wouldn't matter. mrmusicman247
That doesn't work- that runs on the same idea of the all important K/D ratio. What I'm talking about here isn't "one round, one life"- I'm talking about making dying MEAN something- people talk about how they want realism, but then they run around like decapitated chickens with assault rifles. And to be clear, I'm not talking about playing on a MW2-sized map, either- take one of the attacker/defender maps(I'm not sure what the mode is called, sorry) from Battlefield: Bad Co 2, make it four times larger and with varying degrees of dense foliage(among other terrain features) and that would comprise 1 map for TDM or some kind of mission-based mode.
Dude 2 mins is okay. 5 mins is too much but 15-30 mins is ridiculous. harshv82
That's the point. In my original plan it would've been an hour, but I figured even the hardest of the hardcore wouldn't stand for that. The idea is to make people afraid of dying. No multiplayer game to date has done that.
[QUOTE="harshv82"] The idea is to make people afraid of dying. No multiplayer game to date has done that.El_Zo1212o
There's probably a reason for that. As in, nobody would play it. Waiting between deaths would be a massive waste of time.
And if you had to wait half an hour between lives, can you not guess what people would do? Nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to stay in the chair, they're just gonna get up and do somethingelse for half an hour.
In other words, they wouldn't be afraid of death because of how long they had to wait.
If you make people wait 15+ minutes after they die than it becomes a complete stale mate where everyone is too afriad to shoot their gun or move around the map because they don't want to wait.
BPoole96
^^ This is what would happen. Sounds like fun doesn't it?
they just need more game modes like search and destroy where you onlt get one life per round. and have a killstreak reward of bringing back a dead player, or make it where you have to get to a certin part of the map and charge something that takes 10-15 sec to get fallen teamates back. that way people can die and come back but people will take it more seriously and you can work as a team to get back fallen comrades.
...And if you had to wait half an hour between lives, can you not guess what people would do? Nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to stay in the chair, they're just gonna get up and do somethingelse for half an hour...balfe1990
I don't know what they would do, but I sure know what they wouldn't be doing. If it were a capable shooter, people would play it. And the stalemate someone mentioned earlier wouldn't happen because the game would force players to adapt to a real world fighting style- like real military units use. (At least, that's the idea.)
what would you think of a multiplayer game where if you died...you could never play again!!Some-Mist
Maybe a bit too much realism. But what about a 20 $ game where you have to buy back in once you've died for a buck or two? That might work even better...
they just need more game modes like search and destroy where you onlt get one life per round. and have a killstreak reward of bringing back a dead player, or make it where you have to get to a certin part of the map and charge something that takes 10-15 sec to get fallen teamates back. that way people can die and come back but people will take it more seriously and you can work as a team to get back fallen comrades.
hackett_80
Because it wouldn't work. The idea is suppose to be that you don't die in the first place.
[QUOTE="balfe1990"]...And if you had to wait half an hour between lives, can you not guess what people would do? Nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to stay in the chair, they're just gonna get up and do somethingelse for half an hour...El_Zo1212o
I don't know what they would do, but I sure know what they wouldn't be doing. If it were a capable shooter, people would play it. And the stalemate someone mentioned earlier wouldn't happen because the game would force players to adapt to a real world fighting style- like real military units use. (At least, that's the idea.)
what would you think of a multiplayer game where if you died...you could never play again!!Some-Mist
Maybe a bit too much realism. But what about a 20 $ game where you have to buy back in once you've died for a buck or two? That might work even better...
You only quoted part of my post. Read the end of it.
I read the whole thing, but the last line was so ridiculous I chose to pretend you didn't say it at all. Since you've now taken that fantasy from me, I will respond:
...they wouldn't be afraid of death because of how long they had to wait.balfe1990
They would be afraid of not being able to play their brand new game for half an hour if nothing else. And if they decide to spend that half hour watching Saved by the Bell, or playing some other game? Who cares what they do. The point is after that half hour, when they get into a new game they aren't going to be in any hurry to charge the enemy position and get annihilated.
I read the whole thing, but the last line was so ridiculous I chose to pretend to didn't say it at all. Since you've now taken that fantasy from me, I will respond: [QUOTE="balfe1990"]...they wouldn't be afraid of death because of how long they had to wait.El_Zo1212o
They would be afraid of not being able to play their brand new game for half an hour if nothing else.
How in the name of God is that ridiculous?90% of all people who bought and played that game would do exactly what I said. They're not going to stare at a blank screen for half an hour waiting to respawn, they're going to watch the telly, make a bloody sandwich, I don't know.
Nobody has the time or patience to sit at a computer screen doing nothing in half an hour increments.
Rich that you're calling me out for being ridiculous and not one person here has agreed with this premise of yours.
[QUOTE="balfe1990"]...respawn, they're going to watch the telly, make a bloody sandwich, I don't know. Nobody has the time or patience to sit at a computer screen doing nothing in half an hour increments. Rich that you're calling me out for being ridiculous and not one person here has agreed with this premise of yours. I re edited that post. ...And I'm editing this one. I'm not calling anybody out. If anything, I'm disappointed that not one person is down for a new kind of shooter. I mean, I expected this kind of response from the console gamers- they're the ones who decided CoD is the be-all end-all FPS in the first place- but I thought the PC community was supposed to be the hardest of the hardcore?
[QUOTE="balfe1990"]...respawn, they're going to watch the telly, make a bloody sandwich, I don't know. Nobody has the time or patience to sit at a computer screen doing nothing in half an hour increments. Rich that you're calling me out for being ridiculous and not one person here has agreed with this premise of yours.El_Zo1212o
I re edited that post.
You'd have to have alot of free time to play a game like that. After every death, you'd have to find something else to do for half an hour. I realise you're trying your hardest not to die because of the consequences but when you inevitably do, you're going to have to busy yourself for quite a while.
no, because this isn't real life. it's a game, which i play to have fun. and waiting 30 minutes isn't fun. i can play a whole freaking round of BC2 conquest while waiting to go back to your hypothetical game. the thesis is right (games need to be more severely punished by death as to value in-game life more), but your correction is wrong.
[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]no, because this isn't real life. it's a game, which i play to have fun. and waiting 30 minutes isn't fun. i can play a whole freaking round of BC2 conquest while waiting to go back to your hypothetical game. the thesis is right (games need to be more severely punished by death as to value in-game life more), but your correction is wrong. Whenever I read your username, I immediately think "Bruno Mars". :P
[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"][QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]no, because this isn't real life. it's a game, which i play to have fun. and waiting 30 minutes isn't fun. i can play a whole freaking round of BC2 conquest while waiting to go back to your hypothetical game. the thesis is right (games need to be more severely punished by death as to value in-game life more), but your correction is wrong. Whenever I read your username, I immediately think "Bruno Mars". :P NOT YOU TOO D: *runs away crying* :cry:
Instead of the normal videogame 'death' you could have an alternate version where you float about as an invincible ghost and let your team-mates know where the enemies are while you wait to respawn.
Instead of the normal videogame 'death' you could have an alternate version where you float about as an invincible ghost and let your team-mates know where the enemies are while you wait to respawn.
TheLordHimself
but that would be rewarding death, the exact opposite of what TC is trying to do.
Hell no. I can't even stand the respawn timer in BC2. 15-30 minutes would mean I'd die once and leave the server to find another game.
Phoenix534
But therein lies the beauty- this isn't about a 15/30 minute RESPAWN- it's about being dead. You wouldn't be able tp join any other game until your death clock ran down.. and if your pals are in the middle of a match when that happens, you don't pop back in, you'd still have to wait for the match to end.
[QUOTE="TheLordHimself"]
Instead of the normal videogame 'death' you could have an alternate version where you float about as an invincible ghost and let your team-mates know where the enemies are while you wait to respawn.
BrunoBRS
but that would be rewarding death, the exact opposite of what TC is trying to do. Easily fixed. MW2 hardcore lobbies require you to be in game chat. This game would as well, and when you die, you're stuck talking to the other dead guys. Maybe you can fly around as a bird like you do when you die in ARMA2. I knew I'd be in the minority with an idea like this; I just didn't think the gap would be so huge. The problem with this idea is that people who play shooters nowadays have no patience- not for team play, game play, or even the consequences of dying. They're like that because shooting games have made them like that. Imagine a game where the most coveted statistic isn't your K/D ratio, but how many successful missions you have survived!
you know, I was joking with my post where you'd die permanently, but now that I think about it....an extended respawn time wouldn't be such a bad idea for an FPS MMO...where you strive to stay alive, and if you die, you have to wait like 15 minutes or so to resurrect. I can see why developers wouldn't want to do it though, because I don't see that being too popular among fans....but if they made the gameplay very fun and addicting...who knows..
A game like this would have a chance to revolutionize the FPS genre- or at least create a new sub-genre: the Tactical Military(or I suppose just Military) simulator. An FPS for the big boys.
Hell no. I can't even stand the respawn timer in BC2. 15-30 minutes would mean I'd die once and leave the server to find another game.
El_Zo1212o
But therein lies the beauty- this isn't about a 15/30 minute RESPAWN- it's about being dead. You wouldn't be able tp join any other game until your death clock ran down.. and if your pals are in the middle of a match when that happens, you don't pop back in, you'd still have to wait for the match to end.
That's really not fun. I'd play for a five minutes, die, close the game and go play something else. There's a fine line between realism and insanity, and this is on the wrong side of the line.
A game like this would have a chance to revolutionize the FPS genre- or at least create a new sub-genre: the Tactical Military(or I suppose just Military) simulator. An FPS for the big boys.
A game like this would have a chance to revolutionize the FPS genre- or at least create a new sub-genre: the Tactical Military(or I suppose just Military) simulator. An FPS for the big boys. What, by banning people into spending 90% of the time in game not actually playing the game? It isn't a good idea, it'll just create a ridiculous stalemate in which no-one will want to shoot for a risk of dying and being stopped from playing the game for the next half hour, and everyone just sits behind a rock and waits. Stuff like CS:S or TF2 Arena or something, where rounds only take 5 or 10 minutes at most, then fine, but not anything over that.
[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="speedfog"]...its just A GAME.TheOtherTheoG
A game like this would have a chance to revolutionize the FPS genre- or at least create a new sub-genre: the Tactical Military(or I suppose just Military) simulator. An FPS for the big boys. What, by banning people into spending 90% of the time in game not actually playing the game? It isn't a good idea, it'll just create a ridiculous stalemate in which no-one will want to shoot for a risk of dying and being stopped from playing the game for the next half hour, and everyone just sits behind a rock and waits. Stuff like CS:S or TF2 Arena or something, where rounds only take 5 or 10 minutes at most, then fine, but not anything over that. Already addressed that issue- players would develop (or utilize) tactics in the same way the real military does- none of the soldiers in any conflict want to die, but they don't alll sit in one place for days. (Oh, and the only people consistently spending "90% of the time" being dead are the ones who refuse to adapt). And besides- since the majority of the VS modes would be objective based and the maps would be huge, you could always run and hide and just wait for the enemy to complete their objective and evac. You'd lose, but you'd be alive.
[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]A game like this would have a chance to revolutionize the FPS genre- or at least create a new sub-genre: the Tactical Military(or I suppose just Military) simulator. An FPS for the big boys.Slashkice
The 'big boys' wouldn't play it because adults don't have the sort of free time to waste around waiting. Children wouldn't play it either because kids generally lack patience. In other words, it's a terrible idea regardless of demographic.
Adults wouldn't be the ones running in and getting killed.
Might as well make it 15 hours, because the first time an online game shows me a respawn timer over 1-minute I'm turning it off and never playing it again. One minute is seriously pushing it.
[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]...it's a game, which i play to have fun... ...the thesis is right (games need to be more severely punished by death as to value in-game life more), but your correction is wrong. My idea of fun is not-dying. That's why I don't play CoD or Battlefield- dying is normal, a minor setback- and (aside from their multitudinous other shortcomings) I hate their communities for thinking that way. But what would you suggest as a better resolution to this dying-is-okay issue?
Instead of the normal videogame 'death' you could have an alternate version where you float about as an invincible ghost and let your team-mates know where the enemies are while you wait to respawn.
BrunoBRS
but that would be rewarding death, the exact opposite of what TC is trying to do. Easily fixed. MW2 hardcore lobbies require you to be in game chat. This game would as well, and when you die, you're stuck talking to the other dead guys. Maybe you can fly around as a bird like you do when you die in ARMA2. I knew I'd be in the minority with an idea like this; I just didn't think the gap would be so huge. The problem with this idea is that people who play shooters nowadays have no patience- not for team play, game play, or even the consequences of dying. They're like that because shooting games have made them like that. Imagine a game where the most coveted statistic isn't your K/D ratio, but how many successful missions you have survived! there's a difference between having no patience and sitting for hours end and calling it a game experience. like i said, the line of thought isn't bad, the excecution is. demon's souls found one among millions of ways to make players value their in-game life. waiting for enough time to play a whole game instead of actually playing the game is just plain bad design.
[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]...it's a game, which i play to have fun... ...the thesis is right (games need to be more severely punished by death as to value in-game life more), but your correction is wrong. My idea of fun is not-dying. That's why I don't play CoD or Battlefield- dying is normal, a minor setback- and (aside from their multitudinous other shortcomings) I hate their communities for thinking that way. But what would you suggest as a better resolution to this dying-is-okay issue? i've never said i had a better idea, mostly because i haven't bothered giving it much thought. but that doesn't keep me for pointing out another idea as bad. as for battlefield, you should really give it a shot. you're much more useful alive than dead, your K/D can be literally crap and you'll still get a high rank on your team. hell my K/D is almost never close to 1, and i still rank pretty high on most matches.
Might as well make it 15 hours, because the first time an online game shows me a respawn timer over 1-minute I'm turning it off and never playing it again. One minute is seriously pushing it.
Pug-Nasty
When I first drafted the idea in my head, it was going to be 24 hours, but then I realized that was so extreme no one would ever have a chance to get good at the game. And you don't see a problem with the fact that you demand the ability to die over and over again, otherwise you refuse to play the game? What skill does it take to run around for 15 minutes with your guns blasting, dying repeatedly? You play one round of CoD without dying and then tell me if it's harder to kill someone or just to stay alive. But then, it doesn't matter to you folks whether or not a game requires skill, you only care about your Kill/Death ratios. More's the pity.
Might as well make it 15 hours, because the first time an online game shows me a respawn timer over 1-minute I'm turning it off and never playing it again. One minute is seriously pushing it.
El_Zo1212o
When I first drafted the idea in my head, it was going to be 24 hours, but then I realized that was so extreme no one would ever have a chance to get good at the game. And you don't see a problem with the fact that you demand the ability to die over and over again, otherwise you refuse to play the game? What skill does it take to run around for 15 minutes with your guns blasting, dying repeatedly? You play one round of CoD without dying and then tell me if it's harder to kill someone or just to stay alive. But then, it doesn't matter to you folks whether or not a game requires skill, you only care about your Kill/Death ratios. More's the pity.
Well, if your K/D ratio is high, that means you aren't dying all the time, which would be skillful by your definition.
How does your idea affect matches that aren't DM? No one wants to go for an objective because they want to continue playing, then they realize they aren't really playing and go play a much better game, which uses positive reinforcment rather than negative reinformcment to encourage teamwork and strategy.
Log in to comment