You can't give such responsibilities to a 11 year old.
And so, my friends, here ends this discussion. I mean, come on, if that doesn't sum up the greater experience of on-line gaming, what does?
Upvote
0
You can't give such responsibilities to a 11 year old.
And so, my friends, here ends this discussion. I mean, come on, if that doesn't sum up the greater experience of on-line gaming, what does?
It really depends on the map design. Even with selectable spawns, I don't think a level designer (nor me) would want to spread the action too far out, so the objectives and map layout are laid out accordingly.
If each 'division' has a certain amount of slots, it would be a nice suggestion. You don't want 1 huge division going for the same objective, while the rest of the objectives are not looked at.
Also, maybe if you are in a certain division, you get more points for capping/destroying your main objective, and less points if you assist in a diffirent objective. That way ppl don't wander around the map, and It could get ppl to play more team oriented.
Even in a lineair map like koningsplatz selectable spawns could just bring some additional diversity in the combat like spawning on the left or right flank. The base idea is making the flow of the map less predictable. If you spectate in koningsplatz (or any other map) you will notice that the majority of the players takes the shortest route to the action.
If there are multiple options where to start then there are multiple shortest routes to the action which can create some more diversity in the overall game.
Next to that In what ways a mapper would or wouldn't use those tools would be up to the mapper. It wouldn't stop the ability to make a map where there is only one spawn.
And as i've said earlier the progression of cap zones of some squads wouldn't necessarily have to be done by a squad leader. It could be done automatically similar to DH maps (like having a left or right squad in the map). Next to that it all depends on how many squads can be formed and how squadleaders get selected and booted. I just think its far too early into the discussion to start talking about details, that do not matter for the actual base suggestion.
Also, maybe if you are in a certain division, you get more points for capping/destroying your main objective, and less points if you assist in a diffirent objective. That way ppl don't wander around the map, and It could get ppl to play more team oriented.
as with DH teleports......they were nice for seperating armour/infantry spawns and reducing the amount of distance to travel. however for me it killed immersion (i walk through a door that leads me to the battlefield.....what's this the cronicles of narnia? there magical wardrobes here? ). additionally as previously pointed out, spawn rape tends to happen alot as the enemey will see the exact spawn "exits" and on many maps...
... i also used the rooms to randomly distribute special weapons like fausts or satchels to players before they enter the battle. instead of distributing them magically in the battle where the enemy has access to them as well...
Battlefield 2 has one of the best, most practical, and most logical spawn selection methods I have ever played. One guy's opinion.
Kicking people for being inept - and I'm not talking about team-killing, which is a different matter altogether - is utterly unrealistic and shouldn't be a part of the game.
How many **** officers got voted out during the War? Not that many I'd wager.
That wasn't really a kickvote. That was more along the lines of a permanent ban.:IS2:Well, in 'nam they had a system of kickvote known as a fragging.
Ummm... Unrealistic? Pray tell me in which war did an officer repeatedly drop arty on his own troops because he didn't know how to use it properly, refused to learn, and HQ did nothing about it? How many tankers took the only available tank and charged the enemy base, trying to run down everyone they could? Removing military personnel from their position for being that inept is completely realistic.Kicking people for being inept - and I'm not talking about team-killing, which is a different matter altogether - is utterly unrealistic and shouldn't be a part of the game.
How many **** officers got voted out during the War? Not that many I'd wager.
DeadlyDad said:Here's my take on it: There are few things more frustrating for a team than someone wasting a specialist class like tanker and costing them the game. I don't have any problem with someone who isn't effective in a particular role and is willing to learn, but someone who is spoiling the game for their entire team by wasting their effectiveness while totalling ignoring any advice? That I do have a problem with. Many maps are designed for the specialist class(es) to play a large role in the victory, and having a single person make it almost impossible for one side to win simply isn't fair to the entire team. There was an issue in Hurtgenwald a while ago, which some guy started because he kept wasting tanks and wouldn't listen to anyone's advice on how tanks should be used (e.g. support infantry from behind them, don't close with enemy infantry in a closed environment, etc.). Unfortunately, 'voteclasskick' has yet to be implemented, so there was nothing that players without admin could do about the situation. After giving him advice on better tanking didn't change how he played, and asking him to switch to another class didn't work, I simply gave him an ultimatum: change class, or I would kick him, then kick him again if, when he came back, he chose a tanker class again. The idea was simply to give someone else a chance to use that specialist class properly, and allow him to continue playing as something else. Unfortunately for him, his actions in response to my ultimatum prompted a session ban.
Was I wrong in deciding to kick someone, not for breaking any rules, but 'just' for spoiling the game for his team? I don't think so. People play games for fun, and losing a match because one person wants to be a jackass leaves them feeling frustrated and angry. This guy was given plenty of chances to change how he played and become more effective, but he chose not to. What right does he have to ruin a game for his entire team? None, in my opinion.
If you disagree with me, that's fine; I don't expect everyone to. OTOH, once he was gone and someone else took his place, the Allies were finally able to push forward and make it all the way to the last cap before the timer ran out.