I know we're cloning CT but I can't help but feel a lot of the excitement from DA is the 3v3 aspect. I always liked the idea of 3v3 and welcome it. I love 2v2 as well. So, with Project Stealth, is 3v3 going to be included in some maps or not at all? I know it could be done with certain maps but most likely they will have to be custom made.
Just curious how it's going to work.
It is going to be a test of our programmers as it is. In fact, the biggest risk this project has will be the commitment of the programmers.
Man I wish I could program...
I have a compiler and a little C++ knowledge, but none with OpenGL/Direct3D. If you could feed me the things needed (coordinates, etc) I could compile it all.
Edit by MacBryce: I've added that to your resume in the sign up forum.
Feel free to make a new thread if you'd like to talk about programming the game or anything aside from the "amount of players", guys.
I like 3v3 but image 4v4 hmm never seen it happen lol wonder what would happen.
You'd have to make a very small map where mercs can quickly assist each others or you'll see 4 spies on 1 merc situations very often.
That's probably why the maps are so poorly constructed in DA. They wanted to avoid the 3 spies on 1 merc situations so they made maps where each merc can easily cover 4 objectives.
Ah I see now what about 4 mecs vs 2 spys :/ wonder how that would turn out.
That might be a good idea but u need
to change the game play of scct then. Cause when
u have 4 pc's and 4 mercs the spies wont have
a change :-\.
And if u give them nades and mines
and al the other gadgets, the spies wont have any
change.
So its a nice idea but u need to make some changes then
and that means more work to do.. not only building it but
also chancing the concept
or thats the way i think about it
I don't think 4v4 will ever be possible and still be called Splinter Cell. 3v3 was pushing it but it seems to work for DA and I generally like the idea of 3v3 (though 2v2 is still amazing).
Regarding to DA i don't like 3 vs. 3 that much because for an example in teamspeak it is really annoying if you are playing with 2 guys who are talking in the same time ;D well anyway i liked 2 vs. 2 in scct and i hope it will be like this in PS also ... ?!
i think 3vs3 is possible with many changes but i don't think it's as much fun as 2on2 because it's already really hard to have good teamplay with only one teammate.
Quote from: voldarant on March 21, 2008, 11:28:42 PM
Regarding to DA i don't like 3 vs. 3 that much because for an example in teamspeak it is really annoying if you are playing with 2 guys who are talking in the same time ;D well anyway i liked 2 vs. 2 in scct and i hope it will be like this in PS also ... ?!
Teamspeak, what kind of wacko uses that , when the main design of the game was to USE THE IN GAME CHAT SOO YOU DONT RUIN THE PREMISE OF SPY TRAPS / SPY BULLETS hacking ones communications
plus on a further note i know UT3 has highquality voice chat.. you shouldn't have to use third party programs.. its cheating in a way.. im sure West will back me up on this.
Quote from: goodkebab on November 14, 2006, 06:19:43 PM
It is going to be a test of our programmers as it is. In fact, the biggest risk this project has will be the commitment of the programmers.
and animators...
Quote from: AgentX_003 on March 22, 2008, 04:05:50 AM
Quote from: voldarant on March 21, 2008, 11:28:42 PM
Regarding to DA i don't like 3 vs. 3 that much because for an example in teamspeak it is really annoying if you are playing with 2 guys who are talking in the same time ;D well anyway i liked 2 vs. 2 in scct and i hope it will be like this in PS also ... ?!
Teamspeak, what kind of wacko uses that , when the main design of the game was to USE THE IN GAME CHAT SOO YOU DONT RUIN THE PREMISE OF SPY TRAPS / SPY BULLETS hacking ones communications
plus on a further note i know UT3 has highquality voice chat.. you shouldn't have to use third party programs.. its cheating in a way.. im sure West will back me up on this.
I didn't even read the full post before I clicked quote to begin backing you on this. MANY players don't agree with it but just dismiss it because it shows what YOU need to win. I love how people tell me they turn off the mics because, "it makes the server lag less." So in turn you run a third party voice program that lags the server.....more.....BRILLIANT!!!!
Also note that voice travels WAY more quickly on a CT server with 150 ping, than on TS with 40 ping (not mentioning xfire ::)).
there's are some flaws:
-hacking comms doesn't help you shit if you can't understand the language the opponents speak
-you gotta ask like on every eu server to put voip on
-you can't talk with your mate/friends while searching the server or doing a little break
Quote from: Zedblade on March 22, 2008, 04:08:47 AM
Quote from: goodkebab on November 14, 2006, 06:19:43 PM
It is going to be a test of our programmers as it is. In fact, the biggest risk this project has will be the commitment of the programmers.
and animators...
I won't take it personally since it's more than 1,5 year old, but, just for the information, I work on PS almost daily, isn't that commitment?
Quote from: Rambo on March 22, 2008, 01:06:50 PM
there's are some flaws:
-hacking comms doesn't help you shit if you can't understand the language the opponents speak
-you gotta ask like on every eu server to put voip on
-you can't talk with your mate/friends while searching the server or doing a little break
Who are you and how did you get so many posts? ???
Quote from: Overstatement on March 22, 2008, 02:27:26 PM
Quote from: Rambo on March 22, 2008, 01:06:50 PM
there's are some flaws:
-hacking comms doesn't help you shit if you can't understand the language the opponents speak
-you gotta ask like on every eu server to put voip on
-you can't talk with your mate/friends while searching the server or doing a little break
Who are you and how did you get so many posts? ???
He's Gawain.
4 players is too much, 3v3 could work if some maps are designed for it. You could turn on 3v3 as a host or something when you start up a game. 2v2 is still the best, but 3v3 could be good depending on map design/size.
2 Vs 2 is the best, IMO its gets to hectic with 3 players a side ;). Bearing in mind most of the PS maps will be INFLUENCED/INSPIRED/BASED ON CT maps, so it will be harder for the devs to make a balanced 3 vs 3 map, as CT maps were designed for 2 vs 2.
It's not so hard to make maps for 3on3 but i prefer 2on2 :P
2v2 felt more personal than 3v3 - 3v3 was like a CS or BF server, where everyone just sort of run around and do their thing, and no one really got to know their partner.
Indeed
I don't care about 3rd party VOIP other than the fact that it's exceptionally annoying to ask every goddamn server to turn on voice chat. Seriously, I don't undertand the logic of using TS/Ventrillo in a game that has built in VOIP. You can't talk to your friend while searching a server? 99.9% of people use xfire, and that has in-game chat. There's also a friend's list. If you can't shut your pie hole for the whole 30 sec it takes to find a game, well, then idk what to tell you.
I don't think that the reason 3v3 had so little teamwork was because there were more people. I think that it was just DA itself. You couldn't really help eachother out and provide much help for eachother unless 1 person brings flash and 1 person brings syringes. The way the game was so shallow made it more convenient for people to go their own way. Maybe it was the community or the lack of people that wanted to use teamwork, I don't know. I'm sure that it wasn't because it was 3v3. In fact you could use a lot of teamwork with 3 people per team, it's just that people didn't want to. They found it more entertaining or satisfying to run around and try to be heroes.
The reason 3v3 failed was because DA failed, and therefore you didn't get to enjoy it. Think of 3v3 with CT and bigger/differently designed maps. Wouldn't be too bad actually.
teamwork should be possible to coordinate with 3 players, but communications/planning etc would be way too hectic for my taste. you also have to change more than the map layout, cause there will be 3on1 aggro situations and other problems.
3 on 1 aggro problems? Eh, that's where you get help from your 2 available mercs at the time. If the 3 spies are all in one place, then what would be the point for those 2 to not help their teammate and leave their posts to do so? Map design is all that would need to be changed a lot. Just make it easier for mercs to get around the maps and you don't have 3 on 1 problems. Seems like a lot of weight to put on a map designers shoulders though huh?
Quote from: Papa Skull on March 24, 2008, 11:37:47 PM
Map design is all that would need to be changed a lot. Just make it easier for mercs to get around the maps and you don't have 3 on 1 problems.
Doesn't this lead to map design that only works with one of 2 v2 or 3 v3?
papa, with 3 mercs the map would have to get bigger to allow stealth and this makes it not exactly easier to come for help in time.
Quote from: Xan on March 25, 2008, 12:16:14 AM
Doesn't this lead to map design that only works with one of 2 v2 or 3 v3?
sure, it's the only way. maybe we can make maps that adapt to the amount of players though...
Quote from: Rambo on March 25, 2008, 01:02:53 AM
Quote from: Xan on March 25, 2008, 12:16:14 AM
Doesn't this lead to map design that only works with one of 2 v2 or 3 v3?
sure, it's the only way. maybe we can make maps that adapt to the amount of players though...
That sounds unnecessarily complicated.
I doubt it's possible to make maps that's balanced around both 2v2 and 3v3.
...Warehouses' first sector is nicely balanced for 1v1 story ::)
I know it sounds insane, but 1v1 would be a totally new experience in a closed, dark environment.
Like the building with the PCs on deftech - another great piece for 1v1.
Close encounters with one merc, with very narrow escape paths, insane amounts of hiding spots...
VERY intense.
Now that i think about it... how about making maps like warehouse, which could be played 1v1 or 2v2? That would be awesome.
Is it possible to make a variable in the map's coding that determines the amount of players?
Quote from: Rambo on March 25, 2008, 01:02:53 AM
papa, with 3 mercs the map would have to get bigger to allow stealth and this makes it not exactly easier to come for help in time.
Quote from: Xan on March 25, 2008, 12:16:14 AM
Doesn't this lead to map design that only works with one of 2 v2 or 3 v3?
sure, it's the only way. maybe we can make maps that adapt to the amount of players though...
I've realized that it's impossible to design good maps for BOTH 2v2 and 3v3. Maybe somewhat balanced maps that kind of work for both styles. I'd rather have just one style that all maps are designed for, and 2v2 is that style. I'm sure that in future versions of the game you guys could maybe release maps designed strictly for 3v3, right?
Quote from: Liqu1D_133 on March 25, 2008, 04:18:37 AM
...Warehouses' first sector is nicely balanced for 1v1 story ::)
I know it sounds insane, but 1v1 would be a totally new experience in a closed, dark environment.
Now that i think about it... how about making maps like warehouse, which could be played 1v1 or 2v2? That would be awesome.
Who of this group is able to do that?
I'm interested in knowing who is doing what in here :D
That's somehow amazing how you're able to design and program those stuff.
2vs2 > 3vs3 > 1vs1
Warehouse is a aggro map 2v2, but becomes a well balanced map 1v1.
So imo making 1 DM map like that would be awesome.
I always hate playing 1v1 because it completely takes away the teamwork aspect.
Not everyone requires teamwork to have fun.
YA HUHZ!!
For me atleast, and I'm sure there are a lot of others as well.
a big part of svm gameplay is creating unexpected 2-spies-in-a-one-merc area situations and distractions. besides, playing alone is always less fun (at least for me).
however, your thought leads me to an interesting idea: making waiting for players more interesting. atm what i'm doing is playing story in a smaller area or dm till the server fills up. but maybe some1 has better ideas like automatically locking one part of the map or some form of svm mini game?